Leave salary under the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act is wages as defined in Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. Employer cannot adjust the price of a grinding mill against the wages payable to the employee.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in the alternative under Section 115, C. P:c. and Article 227 of the Constitution by the employer, from the appellate order by the District court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, affirming the order of the payment of Wages Authority under Section 15 of the Act. Two of the questions for consideration are ones of form though still Important in view of the frequency with which they arise. Firstly, whether application of this type should not be filed straightway as one in revision under Section 115, C. P. C. without bringing in Article 227 of the Constitution: Secondly, whether the petition becomes ineffective because of the non-mention ct the application of the Payment of Wages Act to the wages in the establishments covered by the M. B. Shops and Establishments Act. On the merits the questions are, whether a claim for leave salary under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, is a claim for wages as defined in Section 2{vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. (The relevant provisions of the M. B. Shops and Establishments Act are identical in their wording with those of the M. P. Act: for convenience, the number of tne later Act are used:) finally, whether the employer is justified in adjusting against the wages payable to the employee the price of a grinding mill which he took away from one of the employer's agents letting him debit it to the employer's account.

( 2 ) NO controversy can, at this stage, be raised in regard to the facts as found by both the lower tribunals. The opposite party was a clerk under the petitioner in an establishment at Indore which comes under operation of the Madhya Pradesh shops and Establishments Act. The employer was liable to pay the wages which were Rs. 110/-P. M. At the relevant point of time four months pay was outstanding and, in addition, the employee had not availed of two months' privilege leave to which he was entitled under Section 26 (1) of the Act. It was also found that during the period of employment a grinding mill was given to th employee by an agent of the employer and on the materials before the tribunal, it was found that a sum of rs. 400/- had been debited to the employer. The tribunals have held, firstly that certain formal defects, pointed out by the employer in the application, were not fatal and did not attract limitation with reference to the date on which they were removed. They aiso held that the employer was not competent to adjust the price of the grinding mill against the wages due to the employee. Thirdly, under Section 2 (vi) even as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 68 of 1957 (which came into force in 1958), the leave earned by the employee came under the definition of wages. Accordingly, the claim of me employee was allowed in toto by the concurrent orders of the tribunals. The cross claim for the price of the grinding mill has been, as it were, left open to be pursued by the employer at his choice in the civil Court.

( 3 ) GROUND No. 1:-- The practice that has grown up here of litigants filing these applications indiscriminately under Section 115 C. P. C. or Article 227 of the constitution, calls for disapproval. Section 17, Payment of Wages Act (and the similar provisions in several other Acts) provide for appeals from a statutory tribunal, which is not a Court under the C. P. C. , to be preferred to the District court; under this Act, the appellate tribunal will be the Small Cause Court in the presidency towns. Either way, the appellate tribunal is not a persona designata but a civil Court already functioning under the C. P. C. and subordinate as such, to the high Court. This is already covered by a number of judicial decisions of this High court and of the Supreme Court itself, so that there is no more doubt as to the manner in which the litigants aggrieved by the order of the statutory tribunal can approach the High Court. As there is no occasion for invoking Article 227 where the tr