SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(All) 503

ANJANI KUMAR
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, U. P. S. E. B – Appellant
Versus
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.P.SINGH, S.N.SRIVASTAVA

ANJANI KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions since raise the common question of law, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order after hearing counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE fact that emerges in both the cases are that the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act have allowed the workmans application for payment of wages and compensation thereof under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by Prescribed authority, the employer preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. The provisions of Section 17 (1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which is relevant for the purpose of wages, clearly speaks that no appeal shall lie against an order or direction issued for payment of wages by the prescribed authority, unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. In both the cases it is admitted fact that the memorandum of appeal when presented had not been accompanied by the certificate of the deposit issued by the prescribe





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top