ABDUL LATIF Vs. KARAMAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Agra, in a matter relating to Payment of Wages Act.

(2.) The opposite party was employed as a munim in Chishti Glass Works, Firozabad. According to the terms of the licence Abdul Latif was named as the occupier, but no person was named as the manager. However, Abdul Latif was acting as the managing proprietor and according to the finding of the lower appellate Court he was empowered to employ or dismiss the persons working in the factory. The factory stopped working on or about 8 January 1954, but admittedly Karamat Ali continued to work till 5 May 1954. The factory with the licence of its working was transferred by the proprietors to Sharda Glass Works. Thereafter a dispute arose about the delayed wages and also the leave wages of Karamat Ali. The matter was taken to the authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act through Mazdoor Dal of Firozabad. The authority allowed the application and asked the managing proprietor to pay a sum of Rs. 516-12-0 as delayed wages and Rs. 187 on account of leave wages under Section 79 of the Factories Act. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the learned Additional District Judge, Agra, upheld the order. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Three main contentions have been raised in this revision. The first is that Karamat Ali was not a worker within the meaning of the Factories Act, nor could he be treated to be a worker after the factory was dosed on 8 January 1954. The second contention is that under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act every employer has been made liable for the payment of wages to the persons employed, but in the case of factories if a person has been named as a manager of the factory under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act, then such a person shall be liable. It is said that there is no evidence to show that Abdul Latif was named as manager or he was the person found acting as the manager within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Factories Act and consequently a decree against Abdul Latif could not be passed. The third contention is that there being no finding about the leave wages a decree for Rs. 187 should not have been passed. All these contentions have no force.