K VENKATACHALAM AIYER Vs. J MELBY DCRUZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the Liquidator of the 1st respondent company. He was the Additional 3rd respondent in Payment of Wages Act Appeal No. 2 of 1964 on the file of the District Court. Quilon and the Liquidator of the 1st respondent in Payment of Wages Application 4 of 1963 on the file of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act (Labour Court), Quilon. The application before the Authority was submitted under S.16 read with S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for direction against the Revision petitioner for payment to the applicants of delayed wages as mentioned in the schedule to the application. The application was presented by a group of persons who were employed in the revision petitioner's industrial establishment T. M. P. No. 2 at Chavara. This company was originally st ed as "Associated Minerals concern" in the year 1939 and after the closure of the same for a period of about two years from 30-4-1949 to 1-2-1951 on account of lock-out, the then Government of Travancore-Cochin took over the factory and conducted the same in the name of T. M. C. No. 3.

(2.) The Payment of Wages Application was filed claiming firstly that the proviso to S.25FFF had no application, and therefore, they were entitled to compensation for the full period of service and secondly that T. M. P. No. 2 cannot be treated as an undertaking and, therefore, in any event S.25F alone applied. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, while holding that the proviso to S.25FFF had no application, dismissed the application on the ground that it was not properly filed. The District Court, Quilon in appeal held that the application was maintainable but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was a case falling squarely within the provisions of the proviso to S.25FFF of the Act and the Applicants are not entitled to any relief. Against that decision a civil revision petition was filed (C. R. P. 71/66) and this Court by its order dated 7th July, 1967 set aside the order oi the District Court and remanded the matter to the learned Judge for a decision afresh after determining the questions covered by points 1, 2 and 3 of the points for determination set out in Para.5 of the order. The points were:--

(3.) I do not propose to go into the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act cannot cover such claims as the claim raised in the present case, and that the proper forum for such an application is the Labour Court under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act is to the following effect :--