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

1961 Supreme(MP) 85

H.R.KRISHNAN
JIWAJIRAO SUGAR COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
J. M. BANERJI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.S.Chhazed, G.M.Chafekar

H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by the defendant employer from the Judgment of the appellate court setting aside the judgment of dismissal by the trial court, and awarding a decree for part of the claim, in favour of the plaintiff-employer. The only point of law at that stage was that the trial court had held that the claim had been time-barred while the appellate court held that the suit being governed by Article 115 and not 102 of the Limitation Act, was not timebarred. For reasons that will presently appear. It is unnecessary to go in this issue now. A new point of law has been raised in revision; under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the claim of the employee in the present case was cognizable solely by the authority for the payment of wages, and therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction. It is urged on behalf of the appellant-employer that it is a case of absolute ban and basic want of jurisdiction which cannot in any event be cured by acquiescence.

( 2 ) THE facts which are relevant for our consideration are that in 1950 the plaintiff non-applicant was in the employment of the applicant on a pay of Rs. 69/- per month. There was a








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