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

2000 Supreme(All) 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. H. Zaidi, J.
NEELAM KUMARI - Appellant
Versus
VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAREILLY - Respondents
Writ Petition 13238 Of 2000
Decided On : 03/15/2000

Advocates Appeared:
M.A.QADEER

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Payment of Wages - Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Section 15, Section 17, Section 18 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and its powers in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage. The court interpreted the provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the Code of Civil Procedure, and concluded that the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage if the case for admission of additional evidence is made out within the four corners of Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application claiming wages and damages under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application, but the respondent filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act and also applied for admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The appellate authority allowed the application, leading to the present petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 17 of the Act and Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage if the case for admission of additional evidence is made out within the four corners of Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out.

R. H. ZAIDI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24. 9. 1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 (VIth Additional District Judge. Bareilly) acting as appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936. (hereinafter for short, "the Act"), allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 for admission of the additional evidence at the appellate stage.

( 3 ) RELEVANT facts of the case giving rise to the present petition. In brief, are that the petitioner who was working as an Office Assistant with the respondent No. 2. filed an application under section 15 of the Act claiming wages from 1. 5. 1990 to 31. 8. 1990. Application filed by the petitioner was opposed by the respondent No. 2. Parties produced evidence In support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority under the Act. after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the application by tts Judgment and order dated 30. 3. 1995 and awarded Rs. 6,128. 00 as arrears of wages and Rs. 6,128. 00 as damages in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Act. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed authority, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. During the pendency of the said appeal, an application was also filed by the said respondent which was numbered as 22ga for admission of additional evidence. By means of the said application the respondent No. 2 wanted to file the statements of the petitioner which were not available at the time when the case was pending before the Prescribed Authority. Application filed by the respondent No. 2 was opposed by the petitioner contending that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The appellate authority relying upon a decision in the B. C. O. , Northern Railway v. Regional Labour commissioner, Jabalpur, 1965 LLJ 78. allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 24. 9. 1999. Hence, the present petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M. A. Qadeer, Advocate, vehemently urged that the respondent No. 1 had no Jurisdiction to entertain the application for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage and It has acted Illegally In entertaining the application and allowing the same. It was urged that the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. , had no application In the proceedings before the respondent No. 1, therefore, the order passed by the said respondent is wholly without Jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the validity of the order. It was urged that the respondent No. 1 exercised the same powers which were being exercised by the prescribed Authority under Sections 15 and 18 of the Act read with Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules framed under the Act.

( 6 ) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed the appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, under section 17 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act provides as under:

"17. Appeal.-- (1) An appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-section (2) of Section 15, or against a direction made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of that section may be preferred within thirty days of the date on which the order or direction was made, In a Presidency-town before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court: (a ). . . . . (b ). . . . . "

( 8 ) SECTION 18 of the Act provides for the powers of the authorities appointed under Section 15 of the Act which reads as under :

"18. Powers of autho










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