MARY CHACKO Vs. OUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition seeks to quash by a writ of certiorari the decision of the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for Ernakulam and Trichur Revenue Districts in P.W.C. No. III of 1959. The petitioner was the opposite party in the aforesaid P. W. case, the respondents before us along with nine others being the petitioners before the Payment of Wages Authority. The petitioner before the aforesaid Authority claiming to be workers in the Nidhiri Estate belonging to the opposite party, claimed wages and compensation from 12th August 1958 to 13th January 1959. The opposite party contended, inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the workers were not in service in the estate during the relevant period. Her case was that the workers were retrenched from 12th August 1958 in pursuance to a notice of retrenchment, dated 12th July 1958. However, she expressed her willingness before the Authority to pay arrears of wages and compensation to applicant Nos. 19 to 27. Finally the Authority, after recording evidence and considering such evidence, came to the conclusion that though there was a notice of retrenchment, dated 12th July 1958, a settlement of the dispute between the Management and the Union of the workers was effected and as a result of the settlement the 18 tappers continued to work in the estate. On the basis of this finding the Authority directed the opposite party to pay compensation and arrears of wages to the 27 workers at the rate of Rs. 221-15-6 per worker. The opposite party has questioned this order of the Payment of Wages Authority, in this Writ Petition, regarding Petitioner Nos. 1 to 18. As regards petitioner Nos. 19 to 27 there is no dispute before us.

(2.) The main point that has been argued before us by the learned advocate of the opposite party, who is the petitioner before us, is that the Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of the subsistence of the relationship of master and servant between the management and the workers if that question has been disputed before it. In other words, the contention is that the Authority, being a Tribunal of summary jurisdiction, has no power to decide an application before it when the very basis of the relationship of master and servant is disputed. In short, the argument is that the jurisdiction of the Authority is limited only to cases of admitted employment or of agreed contracts of employment.

(3.) The contention, on the other hand, raised by the learned advocate of the workers and the learned Government Pleader is two-fold. Firstly, it is argued that this Writ Petition is incompetent because the petitioner has an equally effective alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal under S.17 of the Payment of Wages Act and the present Writ Petition without exhausting that remedy is liable to be dismissed. The second contention of the respondent is that the Authority has jurisdiction to decide all incidental questions necessary for the decision of the main question before it, so that the Authority has the jurisdiction to decide whether the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee subsisted during the relevant period, for the purpose of deciding the main question involved in the case.