MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT, INDORE BENCH
SHINDE, NEVASKAR, JJ.
Rajkumar Mills Ltd., Indore - Applicant
Vs
Inspector, Payment of Wages, M. B., Indore - Opponent
Civil Revn. Appln. No.294 of 1953
Decided On : 05-10-1954
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY - SCOPE OF ACT - CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION - [SECTION 15, 16, 22, 26] - The authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to determine claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages, but not disputes regarding wages. The scope of the Act is confined to the claims specified in Section 15. A consolidated application on behalf of a group of employees is permissible under the Act and the rules made thereunder.
Fact of the Case:
45 Chowkidars of the Watch and Ward Department of the Rajkumar Mills Ltd. had their wages standardized at Rs.26/- per month in 1947. From 15-8-1947 until July 1948 they were paid at the rate of Rs.26/- per month. A dispute arose regarding the wages for non-working days between the Mill authorities and the Chowkidars. This dispute was under the consideration of the Labour Minister. Pending the decision of the Minister in charge of Labour, on the suggestion of Shri Ramsingh Bhai, President, Indore Majdoor Sangh, the Mill authorities began to pay Rs.5/- extra per month as an interim arrangement. The Labour Minister gave his award which was to the effect that the Chowkidars should be allowed holidays provided for under the Factories Act, and that when work was taken from them for any special reasons on stop-days they should be paid over time allowance as required by the law. The award also stated that retrospective effect be given to the award. Accordingly from September 1949 to January 1950 adjustment was made from the extra sum of Rs.5/- that was paid to the Chowkidars. The Chowkidars complained that Rs.5/- were given by way of permanent increment in their pay, and consequently for overtime work extra payment ought to have been made to them. On 28-2-1950, the Inspector appointed under Section 14, Payment of Wages Act, applied to the authority appointed under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act, for a direction under sub-section (3) of Section 15 on the ground that wages of the 45 Chowkidars due in respect of wage-periods from September 1949 to January 1950 have been illegally deducted. The Authority directed the refund of the illegal deductions aggregating to a sum of Rs.1125/-, holding that the Chowkidar's minimum basic wage was Rs.31/- per month. This decision was upheld by the District Judge, Indore. Consequently the Rajkumar Mills Ltd., have filed this revision.
Finding of the Court:
The authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to determine a dispute regarding wages. A consolidated application on behalf of 45 Chowkidars is permissible under the Act and the rules made thereunder.
Issues: 1. Whether the authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to determine a dispute regarding wages? 2. Whether a consolidated application on behalf of 45 Chowkidars is permissible under the Act and the rules made thereunder?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope of the Payment of Wages Act is confined to the claims specified in Section 15, which are claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages. The authority appointed under Section 15 can only decide claims regarding deductions alleged to have been made contrary to the provisions of the Act, and delay in payment of wages. 2. Section 16 of the Act and the rules made thereunder provide for a consolidated application on behalf of a group of employees.
Final Decision: The application is allowed and the decisions of the lower courts are set aside.
SHINDE, J.
This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C, and also under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, directed against a decision of the District Judge, Indore, who with a few modifications upheld the order of the Authority appointed under S.15, Payment of Wages Act. The facts out of which this revision arises are briefly as follows:
About 45 Chowkidars of the Watch and Ward Department of the Rajkumar Mills Ltd., had their wages standardised at the rate of Rs.26/- per month in 1947. From 15-8-1947 until July 1948 they were paid at the rate of Rs.26/- per month. A dispute arose regarding the wages for non-working days between the Mill authorities and the Chowkidars. This disupte was under the consideration of the Labour Minister. Pending the decision of the Minister in charge of Labour, on the suggestion of Shri Ramsingh Bhai, President, Indore Majdoor Sangh, the Mill authorities began to pay Rs.5/- extra per month as an interim arrangement.
The Labour Minister gave his award which was to the effect that the Chowkidars should be allowed holidays provided for under the Factories Act, and that when work was taken from them for any special reasons on stop-days they should be paid over time allowance as required by the law. The award also stated that retrospective effect be given to the award. Accordingly from September 1949 to January 1950 adjustment was made from the extra sum of Rs.5/- that was paid to the Chowkidars. The Chowkidars complained that Rs.5/- were given by way of permanent increment in their pay, and consequently for overtime work extra payment ought to have been made to them.
On 28-2-1950, the Inspector appointed under Section 14, Payment of Wages Act, applied to the authority appointed under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act, for a direction under sub-section (3) of Section 15 on the ground that wages of the 45 Chowkidars due in respect of wage-periods from September 1949 to January 1950 have been illegally deducted. The Authority directed the refund of the illegal deductions aggregating to a sum of Rs.1125/-, holding that the Chowkidar's minimum basic wage was Rs.31/- per month. This decision was upheld by the District Judge, Indore. Consequently the Rajkumar Mills Ltd., have filed this revision.
2. Mr. Chaphekar, who appears for the applicants, has raised two contentions before us. His first contention is that the Authority appointed under Section 15, Payment of Wages Act, has no jurisdiction to determine a dispute regarding wages. His second contention is that a consolidated application on behalf of 45 Chowkidars is not warranted by Section 16, Payment of Wages Act. The first contention raised by the learned counsel has considerable force. In order to determine the scope and extent of the Payment of Wages Act, it is necessary to examine cursorily several provisions of the Act. The preamble runs as follows:
"Whereas it is expedient to regulate the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in industry; it is hereby enacted as follows."
This does not give a clear indication as to the scope of the Act. Section 1 deals with short title, extent, commencement and application. Section 2 defines certain expressions used in the Act. Section 3 deals with the responsibility for payment of wages. Section 4 deals with the fixation of the wage periods. Section 5 deals with the time of payment of wages. Section 6 lays down that the wages must be paid in current coin or currency-notes. Section 7 enumerates the deductions which can legitimately be made by the employer. Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 place restrictions on the powers of the employer to make deductions on the ground of fines, absence from duty, damage or loss, services rendered, recovery of advances and payments made to co-operative societies and insurance schemes. Section 14 provides for the appointment of an inspector for the purposes of this Act. Section 15 is the most important section in the Act; consequently it is
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.