LAWS(BOM)-1954-10-4

LAXMAN PANDU Vs. CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER WESTERN RAILWAY

Decided On October 01, 1954
LAXMAN PANDU Appellant
V/S
CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, WESTERN RAILWAY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rather important question arises on this civil revision application as to the right of appeal by an employer under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. It appears that a joint application of certain employees totalling about 99 of the opponent railway was made to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Their claim was that they were entitled to house rent as part of their wages, that that part had not been paid, and therefore there was delay in payment of wages. The Authority upheld the contention of the employees and gave a direction that a sum of Rs. 8,775 plus Rs. 9,165 should be deposited by the railway authority in Court to be paid to the various employees in the amounts mentioned in the schedule to the order. Against this decision the railway went in appeal to the Small Causes Court at Bombay and the learned Chief Judge reversed the decision of the Authority, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the application of the workers. It is against that order that this revision application is preferred, and the first contention urged by Mr. Vakharia on behalf of the employees is that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

(2.) Now, turning to the relevant provisions of the Act, Section 15 deals with the jurisdiction of the Authority and his authority is to direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted or the payment, of the delayed wages together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding ten rupees in the latter. Section 16(2) enables the employed persons belonging to the same unpaid group if they are borne on the same establishment and if their wages for the same wage-period or periods have remained unpaid after the day fixed by Section 5, to present a single application instead of each employee belonging to such a group having to present separate applications. Subsection (3) authorises the authority to treat as a single application any number of applications made by various employees if they belong to the same unpaid group. Then we come to Section 17 which deals with the right of appeal, and the right of appeal is given against a direction made under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 15, and in this case we are only concerned with the direction given under Sub-section (3) of Section 15. Clause (a) of Section 17(1) gives the right of appeal to the employer and" it provides:

(3.) Now, the argument of the employer, briefly put, is that inasmuch as the order made by the Authority against the employer for payment of wages exceeded Rs. 300, the employer had a right of appeal under Section 17(1)(a) , and it is this argument which I have got to consider and examine. In my opinion, Section 16(2) is purely procedural. Instead of various employed persons who belong to the same unpaid group being compelled to file separate applications and to pay separate court-fees, the Legislature has conferred upon them the facility of presenting a single application and paying a single court-fee. But what must be borne in mind is that although the application is one, the claims are made by various employees and those claims are separate and distinct, and in my opinion the direction which the authority has to give under Section 15(3) is not in respect of the group as a whole, but it must be in respect of each individual employee. It is said by Mr. Parikh that in this case the direction of the Authority is that a sum far exceeding Rs. 300 should be paid by the employer to the person in the unpaid group. I do not look upon the order of the Authority in that light. The order of the Authority in substance is that the employer should pay to each employee the amount mentioned in the schedule, and the mere fact that the Authority aggregates those amounts and the result is a sum exceeding Rs. 300 does not lead to the inference that the order made was a composite order against the employer in respect of payment of a composite sum, but the direction clearly is to the employer to satisfy the separate individual claims of each employee mentioned in the schedule to the order. If I were to accept Mr. Parikh's contention, it would result in this curious situation that by the Legislature's desire to confer a facility upon the employees the right of appeal given to the employer was expanded. Admittedly, if these employees had made separate applications, the employer would have had no right of appeal, but merely because they combine in one application in order to save court-fees and to avail themselves of the facility provided by the Legislature, it is suggested that the employer obtained a right of appeal. In my opinion, such an interpretation of the statute should he avoided if it is possible.