Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Aloke Chakrabarti
HIND MAJDOOR SABHA, U.P - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 22727 Of 1990
Decided On : 12/09/1998
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTION 15(2), 17 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5, 29(2) - Appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Interpretation of statutory provisions - Condonation of delay.
Fact of the Case:
Tube-well operators filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, alleging illegal deductions from their wages and seeking refund and compensation. The application was allowed, and recovery proceedings were initiated. The employers filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, and their application for condonation of delay was allowed. The employees challenged this order, arguing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was not applicable to such appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, were necessarily excluded in respect of appeals under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The specific omission of a provision for condonation of delay in Section 17, unlike in Section 15, indicated the Legislature's intent to withhold such power from the appellate authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to appeals under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. Whether the appellate authority under Section 17 has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Limitation Act, 1963, to determine the applicability of Section 5 of the latter to appeals under Section 17 of the former. 2. The court relied on the specific omission of a provision for condonation of delay in Section 17, unlike in Section 15, to conclude that the Legislature intended to exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, in such appeals.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order allowing the condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
( 1 ) -TWO tube-well operators filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 through the present petitioner contendirig that respondent-employers illegally made deductions from their wages for the period between 1. 10. 1988 and 31,7. 1989 and prayed for refund of the said amount together with compensation. The application was allowed by order dated 21. 12. 1989 directing refund of deductions and compensation. After the recovery was in progress under Section 15 (3) of the said Act and recovery warrants had been issued, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the said Act on 21. 3. 1990. As there was delay of about two months, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation act supported by an affidavit was filed. Employees filed objection to the application for condonation of delay. The respondent No. 5 by his order dated 12. 7. 1990 allowed the said application upon condoning the delay and the appeal was admitted. Challenging the said order this writ petition was filed.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the employees contended that in respect of such an appeal under Section 17 of the said Act the provision of Section 5 of the limitation ACT, 1963. is not available. Law has been. referred to on behalf of the petitioner. Workmen as decided in the case of Shri Anwari basavaraj Patil v. Sri Siddaramaiah, Union of India v. Aftab Hussain, and U. P. Electricity Board and Ors. v. 7th addl. District Judge, faizabad and Ors. . Reference was also made to the cases of Hukum Narain Yadau v. Lalit narayan Misra, Mukri Gopalan v. C. P. Aboobacker and Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubachand Beghel.
( 3 ) IT has been contended that law has been decided in the case of Shri Anwari Basauaraj patil (supra) wherein question of applicability of provisions of LIMITATION ACT, 1963 in respect of a proceeding under the Representation of Peoples act, 1951 was being considered. It has been held therein that the period for notice under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the said Act does not permit condonation of delay under the LIMITATION ACT, 1963. Considering the provisions of the said Act as also the effect of Section 29 (2) of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 and also the law as explained in the case of h. N. Yadau (supra), it has been held that if on an examination of the relevant provisions of the Special Act, it is clear that the provisions of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 are necessarily excluded then the benefits conffered by the Limitation act cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Special Act. It has been fur-ther contended that the specific provision for condonation of delay has been made in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the said Act although no such provision is there in Section 17 and, therefore, the aforesaid interpretation of law becomes applicable.
( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent-employers it has been contended that the authority acted under Section 15 of the said Act is persona designata and, therefore, the specific provision empowering condonation of delay had to be made whereas the authority under Section 17 is a regular court having all its incidental power and, therefore, Section 29 (2) of the limitation ACT, 1963 cannot be interpreted in the aforesaid manner as contended by the petitioner-employees. Reliance has been placed on the law decided in the cases referred to above as also on the cases of Lata Kamat v. Vilas and the State of West Bengal v. Kartick chandra Das. In the case of Vidya Charan Shukla (supra) law in this connection was settled considering the limitation ACT, 1963 as it then stood as also the question came for consideration therein The said law was again considered in the case of H. N. Yadav (supra) and it was laid down there that if the scheme of special law and the nature of the remedy provided therein amount to a complete code in itself then the provisions of the LIMITAT
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
