MOOSA KAZIMI Vs. K M SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in P. W. case No. 174 at 1950 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Madras, and quashing the order of the Commissioner, for workmen's Compensation, dated 7th December 1956, whereby a sum of Rs. 253 towards arrears of wages and a further sum of Rs. 12 as costs were awarded to the first respondent as against the petitioner. The petitioner, who was running a restaurant called Lucky Cafe in Avanashi Road, Coimbatore, purchased, on 1-111955, the goodwill and all other rights in a hotel. Davey and Co. near the railway station, which included a bakery as well. The first respondent was one of the employees in Davey and Co. According to the first respondent, his services were continued by the petitioner. The former was, however, discharged from service on 10-2-1956. Claiming that he was entitled to arrears of wages on the foot of a monthly salary of Rs. 175, the first respondent filed an application before the second respondent for an order, directing the payment of the amount claimed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The claim was contested by the petitioner both on the grounds that the second respondent had no jurisdiction and that the first respondent wag not entitled to the relief prayed for. The second respondent substantially upheld the claim of the first respondent, and, after making a deduction of Rs. 272 already advanced by the petitioner, directed him to pay the first respondent the amounts aforesaid. , The petitioner has come forward with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the second respondent.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is urged that Davey and Co. , was not a factory, and, that, therefore, there was no jurisdiction in the second respondent to entertain an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act at the instance of an employee or ex-employee therein. There was some contest before second respondent as to the exact number of persons that were employed in davey and Co. The finding of the fact arrived by the second respondent was that ten persons were working in that company. Therefore, the only question that was argued in this court was as to whether the Payment of Wages Act, 1938, could properly be invoked by the first respondent to obtain relief against the petitioner.

(3.) SECTION 1 (4) of the Payment of Wages Act (Act IV of 1936) states that it applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to the persons employed in any factory and to certain other persons specified in that Sub-section, Section 3 of the act declares that every employer shall be responsible for the payment to persons employed by him of all wages required to be paid under the Act. Section 15 of the act states that the State Government may, by notification, appoint any commissioner for Workmen's compensation or other officer having judicial experience 10 be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deduction from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area. Under Section 2 (1) of the Act the word "factory" is defined as follows:- -.