SREEDHARAN NAIR Vs. SANKU SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The failure to take a closer look at the law by counsel at the earlier stages of a case, particularly when the application of the law depends on determination of questions of fact, is almost decisive of the fate of a case in many instances. The present revision petition is, perhaps, an instance in point; for, out of three points raised, two are pure questions of fact and have been concurrently negatived by the original and appellate authorities and the third, which is a question of law affecting jurisdiction but turning on factual findings; has not been considered by either tribunal at the lower level obviously because it has not been raised before them. May be I am inclined to think, clearly, because there is no merit or point on the facts.

(2.) The revision - petitioner is the opposite party before the Payment of Wages Authority, being the contractor of Toddy Shop No. 28 in Pampady village under whom the respondents, tappers, had been employed. The claim put forward by the tappers was that there had been delay in payment of certain items of wages due to them in the latter half of 1962-63. A substantial part of the claim put forward has been upheld, and the Toddy Shop contractor has chosen to come up in revision. He contends that the entire claim had been settled at Rs. 300/- when there was a strike by the tappers and the Excise Inspector intervened to end the strike. His further case is that this amount of Rs. 300/-, which has been actually paid off by CPW. 2, was the only amount that could be claimed or decreed, even if the plea of payment was not accepted. The tappers, on the other hand, agree that there was some sort of a settlement but do not agree that it was at Rs. 300/- that the claim was settled and stoutly deny any payment. The appellate authority who affirmed the findings of the Labour Court (which is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act hereinafter referred to as the Act), held that it was "well nigh impossible to believe" the story of payment without a voucher, and on the alternative case that even if the amount had not been paid nothing more than Rs. 300/-was claimable, the learned District Judge observed as follows:

(3.) The learned District Judge proceeds to state that "no other point was urged", but the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pressed before me a point put forward in his grounds, couched in the following terms: