L SRIKANTAIAH Vs. M PUTTASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the Proprietor of S.E.L. Dry cleaners, Mysore, filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the City Magistrate, Mysore in Criminal Misc. 44/62 on 27-11-1962 directing recovery of Rs. 205 towards compensation and penalty as being payable by him to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the City Magistrate, while Respondent No. 3 is the Labour Officer and Appellate Authority under the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.

(2.) The material facts to appreciate the points at issue are as follows:--Respondent No. 1 (who is hereinafter called the respondent) was an employee of the petitioner on a monthly salary of Rs. 50 from 17-2-1955 and had been working as accounts clerk. The respondent was removed from service after he was served with a notice through a lawyer at the instance of the petitioner on 29-1-1961 on the ground of negligence and unsatisfactory behaviour. Against the order of his removal from service, the respondent preferred an appeal to respondent No. 3 under section 41(2) of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The latter held an enquiry, came to the conclusion that the removal was unjustified and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 200 (Rs. 150 towards three months' wages as compensation and Rs. 50 being one month's wages in lieu of notice) within 15 days from the date of issuing the order. The order is dated 4-12-1961. The respondent then filed an application under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, in the court of the City Magistrate, Mysore on 19-3-1962 for the recovery of wages of Rs. 50 for January, 1961, Rs. 35 being the amount deposited by him as security and Rs. 200 being the compensation. The petitioner admitted his liability to pay the salary of Rs. 50 for the month of January 1961 and the balance of the deposit of Rs. 35; he denied his liability to pay any other sum and challenged the validity of the order passed by the Labour Officer. The petitioner also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the effect that the claim for wages for January, 1961 and the deputy amount was not tenable as the same had been made more than six months after the due date of payment without any sufficient cause. The preliminary objection was upheld and the respondent himself filed an application restricting his claim for the recovery of Rs. 200 awarded as compensation by the Labour Officer. On the question of his jurisdiction the Magistrate held that the amount of compensation fixed by the Labour Officer fell within the definition of the word 'wages' as contained in Section 2 (widow) of the Payment of Wages Act and that the failure of the petitioner to pay the same within the period fixed by the Labour Officer entitled the respondent to recover the whole amount "as delayed wages" within the meaning of Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act. In view of these conclusions, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay Rupees 200 together with compensation amount of Rs. 5 on or before 10th December 1962. It is the legality of this order that is challenged in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Chandra Guru has appeared for the petitioner and there is no appearance for the respondent.