M D BEPARI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the employee against the order made by, the appellate authority, viz., the Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneouos Appeal No. 17 of 1971, dt.Sth of July 1972.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application under S.15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 claiming certain am- ant as the arrears of wages due to him. That application was contested by the employer the respondent. The Payment of Wages authority made an order on the 6th of September 1971 directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs.763-50 P. That order was challenged by way of appeal by the petitioner under S.17 of the Act to the appellate authority. The employer-respondent preferred cross-objections on the 17th of November 1971. The appellate authority allowed the cross- objections and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The amount awarded to the petitioner was reduced to Rs.23. It is the said order that is challenged by the employee in this revision petition.

(3.) Sri Goulay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the cross-objections filed by the respondent. S.17 of the Act provides for an appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-sec. (2) of S.15 of the Act or against a direction made under sub-sec. (3) or (4) of that Section. It is further provided that such an appeal has to be preferred within thirty days after the date on which the order or direction was made by the original authority: There are no express provisions in the Act conferring the right to file cross-objections similar to the one contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions pertaining to appeal under the Payment of Wages Act are similar to the provisions of S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court has, while construing S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, taken the view that no cross-objections are contemplated and that if cross-objections in fact are filed, the same should be regarded as an appeal. Vide A. Rahiman v. M. Wabber, (1973) 1 Mys.L.J. 376. Even though there are no express provisions in the Act for preferring cross-objections, if the provisions of Or.XLI, R.22 of the CPC are applied the same will have the effect of circumventing the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S.17 of the Act which provides for a period of limitation of thirty days for preferring an appeal against an order. If the principles contained in Or.XLI, R.22 of the CPC are invoked, the same would entitle the respondent to prefer cross-objections more than thirty days after the order appealed against was passed. 1 am, therfore, clearly of the opinion that no cross-objections are competent and that the provisions of Or.XLI, R.22 of the CPC cannot be invoked. The cross-objections filed by the respondent can therefore be regarded as a cross-appeal filed by the respondent. The same was filed on the 30th of November 1971 long after the prescribed period of thirty days for preferring an appeal had expired. The cross-objections filed by the respondent, even if the same is regarded as a cross-appeal, has to be dismissed as being barred by limitation.