PAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR UJJAIN Vs. SURAJMAL MEHTA DIRECTOR THE BARNAGAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and raises the question of the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 4 of 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) On the licence of the Barnagar Electric Supply and Industry Company, of which respondent 1 was at all material times the managing director, having been revoked by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the company's undertaking having been taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, respondent I served notices on the company's employees that their services would no longer be required as from October 1, 1962. Thereupon the appellant on behalf of 20 employees of the company filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act to recover from respondent 1 wages for the notice month and retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 12,853.60 P. payable to the employees under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On respondent 1 contesting the claim as also the jurisdiction of the Authority, the Authority raised certain preliminary issues, namely : (1) whether the said application was maintainable in view of the revocation of the company's licence, (2) whether the Authority had jurisdiction to determine the liability of respondent 1 for retrenchment compensation before the amount thereof was ascertained under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and (3) whether in view of the services of the workmen not having been interrupted by the said transfer and the terms and conditions of service applicable to them after the said transfer being not in any way less favourable than before and the said Board as the new employer being liable after the transfer for compensation in the event of retrenchment, the employees were entitled to claim any compensation. By his order dated May 21, 1963, the Authority held against respondent 1 on the question of jurisdiction. Respondent 1 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court held that Section 15 of the Act did not apply and that the proper forum for such an application was a Labour Court under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This appeal challenges the correctness of this order.

(3.) Mr. Shroff for the appellant contended that after the amendent of the definition of 'wages' in the Act by Act 68 of 1957 and the amended definition having now included "any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for payment of such sum whether with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made" as wages, there could be no doubt that the legislature has conferred jurisdiction on the Authority under the Act to determine compensation payable under Section 25FF of the Industrial Diputes Act in an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act and that therefore the High Court was in error in quashing the order passed by the Authority. Mr. Chagla appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 in the next appeal, on the other hand, contended (1) that the Authority under the Act was a special Authority with limited jurisdiction, that it has to deal only with the subject matters specified in the Act and its jurisdiction must therefore be strictly construed, and (2) that the Act and the Industrial Disputes Act deal with different subjects, provide different tribunals with different jurisdictions and therefore it is not possible to hold that Parliament which enacted both the Acts could possibly have contemplated that a claim arising under the Industrial Disputes Act should be determined by a tribunal set up under a different Act.