U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated November 3, 1987 passed by the District Judge Gorakhpur thereby rejecting the application preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the Act). The quintessence of what has been held by the District Judge is that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot be called in aid for application to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

(2.) Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. The questions that loom before the Court for determination are two fold: (1) whether the Payment of Wages Act is a complete Code in itself in the matter of limitation or it is mere adjunct to supplement Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act for purposes of limitation; and (2) whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act can be called in aid to apply to proceedings under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act by virtue of Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963?

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, to begin with, canvassed that under the old Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was conspicuous by absence of reference in Section 29 of the self-same Act but after coming into force of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, specific reference was made to Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. So far as appeal under the Payment of Wages Act is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that it is a special Act it does not expressly exclude applicability of Section 5 of the Act. He further canvassed that application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act should have been entertained and the same should have been disposed of on points involving merit. In support of his submission, the learned counsel, has called in aid the decision reported as Union of India v. Aftab Ahmad and Ors., 1966 (13) FLR 351.