KRISHNARAJENDRA MILLS LTD Vs. LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under S.115 CPC. can be disposed of together as they raise a common question of law.

(2.) They have been preferred by the common respondent in Crl. M.Ps. 14 & 16 of 1967, on the file of the Court of the 2nd City Magistrate and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the Mysore taluk area. Mysore. The said petitions have been preferred by several workers of Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) under Ss.15(2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the course of the hearing of the said petitions on behalf of the workers, applications were made under Rules 11 and 12 of Or.26 of the CPC. read with S.18 of the Act, for the appointment of a Commissioner to examine the accounts of the respondent Mills and prepare a statement in respect of over-time work as detailed in a proforma and the memo of instructions. The authority made an order for the issue of commission on certain terms, with which we are concerned for the present. Aggrieved by this order, the Mills has approached this Court in the present revisions.

(3.) Shri T. Rangaswamy Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised only one contention. Briefly summarised it is as follows. Having regard to the provisions of S.18 of the Act, only such provisions of the CPC. as relate to the taking of evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, are made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Rule 11 of Mysore Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1963, will not in any way enlarge the jurisdiction of the Authority, beyond what has been conferred under S.18 of the Act. By way of illustration, it can be pointed out that the provisions like Orders 11, 13, 16 and 18 enacted hni Sch. I to the CPC., would fall within the ambit of the power conferred on the authority by virtue of the provisions of S.18 of the Act. By way of analogy the provisions of S.11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can be referred to, wherein there is a specific reference to the power of the Tribunals constituted under that Act, enabling the issue of commissions for the examination of witnesses, among other matters. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of such a specific enumeration of the power relating to the issue of commission in the present Act, the existence of such power cannot be Implied.