Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
M. L. CHATURVEDI, J.
Vishwamitra Karyalaya Press
Versus
Authority appointed under Payment of Wages Act
Civil Misc. Writ Nos.970, 971 and 987 of 1953
Decided On : 25-02-1955
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - FACTORIES ACT - S.2(M), S.2(K) - INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT - S.2(II) - PRINTING PRESS - FACTORY - MANUFACTURING PROCESS - APPEAL - S.17 - EMPLOYEES - WAGES - DELAY IN PAYMENT - JURISDICTION - MAGISTRATE - WRIT - ART.226 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - MAINTAINABILITY OF PETITION - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - LACHES - EMPLOYEES WORKING AT BIRHANA ROAD - FACTORY - MANUFACTURING PROCESS - PRINTING BY LETTERPRESS - COMPOSITION OF TYPES - INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT - WORKSHOP - NOTIFICATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT - EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT TO PRINTING PRESSES.
Fact of the Case:
The Vishwamitra Karyalaya (Press) published a Hindi newspaper known as Vishwamitra at Kanpur. The press was registered as a factory under the Factories Act and had a license for the premises at Mahatma Gandhi Road. Some disputes arose between the Karyalaya and certain employees, which were referred to an Industrial Tribunal and eventually reached the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court's decision, complaints were made that the management had not paid the employees' wages within the period provided by law. The Chief Inspector of Factories filed applications under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before a Magistrate authorized to hear and decide claims arising from deductions or delays in wage payments. The Magistrate framed issues, heard evidence, and directed the payment of wages as claimed by the Chief Inspector.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the premises at Birhana Road, where the employees were working, came within the definition of a factory under the Payment of Wages Act, as it was a place where a part of the manufacturing process, namely, the composition of the letterpress, was being carried out. The court also found that the premises at Birhana Road constituted an industrial establishment under the Act, as it was a workshop where articles (the newspaper Vishwamitra) were produced and adapted. The court further held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear and decide the applications under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act and that the employees were entitled to the payment of wages as directed by the Magistrate.
Issues: 1. Whether the premises at Birhana Road came within the definition of a factory under the Payment of Wages Act? 2. Whether the premises at Birhana Road constituted an industrial establishment under the Act? 3. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear and decide the applications under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act? 4. Whether the employees were entitled to the payment of wages as directed by the Magistrate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of a factory under the Payment of Wages Act includes any premises where a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or without the aid of power, provided that there are at least 10 or 20 workers, respectively. 2. The definition of an industrial establishment under the Act includes any workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, adapted, or manufactured for use, transport, or sale. 3. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear and decide the applications under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act because the premises at Birhana Road came within the definition of a factory and the employees were entitled to the payment of wages as directed by the Magistrate because they had not been paid within the period provided by law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions filed by the Vishwamitra Karyalaya (Press) challenging the Magistrate's orders directing the payment of wages to the employees.
2. The petitioner in these petitions is the Vishwamitra Karyalaya (Press), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kanpur. The press publishes a Hindi newspaper known as Vishwamitra at Kanpur. The press has been registered as a factory under the Factories Act and there is a licence for the premises No.965 Mahatma Gandhi Road. The respondents 2 to 14 of petitions Nos.970 and 971 of 1953, and 2 to 9 of petition No.987 of 1953, are the employees or were the employees of this Karyalaya.
Some of them were sub-editors, some compositors and one was a Daftari. There were certain disputes between the Karyalaya and respondents 2 to 14 of petition No.970 of 1953, which were referred for adjudication to some Industrial Tribunal, and the matter went up to, the Supreme Court.
After the decision by the Supreme Court, there were certain complaints that the management had not paid the wages of the respondents within tire period provided by law, and applications were filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories to the Magistrate, who had been authorised under S.15, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in the payment of wages. Certain preliminary objections were taken to the applicants, and after they had been disposed of, the learned Magistrate framed issues and went into the matter.
After discussing tire facts and law of the points raised before him, he came to the conclusion that the respondents had not been paid their wages within the period provided by S.5, Payment of Wages Act. A number of legal points were also raised before him, but he decided all of them against the petitioner and directed payment of wages, as claimed by the Chief Inspector. The1 order of the Magistrate is dated 22-10-1953 and petitions Nos.970 and 971 of 1953 were filed in this Court on 12-11-1953 and petition No.987 of 1953 on 23-11-1953.
The prayers contained in these petitions are that the order passed by the Magistrate directing the payment of wages be quashed, and that writs of mandamus be issued directing tire respondent 1 not to recover from the petitioner the amount awarded under the order aforesaid.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of points in support of the petitions, and the learned counsel for the Respondents has raised a "preliminary objection to the hearing of the petitions. I proceed to decide first the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The objection is to the effect that appeals lay against the impugned orders under S.17, Payment of Wages Act, and the petitioner having omitted to file these appears, he has disentitled himself to present these petitions.
Sub-section (3) of S.15, Payment of Wages Act says that where an application under sub-s. (2) by the Inspector is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer and, after such enquiry as may be necessary, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or may order the payment of the delayed wages together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding a certain figure. Section 17 says that an appeal against a direction under sub-s. (3) of S.15 may be preferred within 30 days of the date on which the direction was made before the District Court, if, the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeds Rs.300/-.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that applications were made under sub-s. (2) of S.15 of the said Act by the Chief Inspector of Factories, that they were entertained by the Magistrate appointed to deal with them, and in the end the learned Magistrate directed the payment of daily wages to the workers. The order was
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
