THAKORAJI MAHARAJ DHARMASHALA TRUST Vs. RAM MANOHARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are briefly these. On 28 December 1956 the respondent made an application to the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act for recovering wages for the period August 1953 to December 1955, which according to him had not been paid to him by the petitioner. Under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of S. 15 of the Act the application has to be made to the authority within one year from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made. The second proviso permits an application to be made after the period of one year when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The authority refused to condone the delay in making the application for the period prior to December 1955. The authority directed the petitioners to pay to the respondent his wages for the month of December 1955, leave-wages and notice-pay. The respondent did not appeal against this order. On 2 January 1958 the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for recovering the wages alleged to have been due to him for the period from 1 December 1954 to 30 November 1958. The applicants denied the respondent's claim. They also contended that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit by reason of S. 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. This contention was accepted by the trial Judge and the suit was dismissed. An application was then made to a Bench of the Small Causes Court under S. 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Relying on the observation made in the Special Civil Application No. 879 of 1956, the Bench of that Court held that the suit filed by the respondent was maintainable. The decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit was therefore set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial Court. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present civil revision application, in which it has been contended that the view taken by the Bench of the Court of Small Causes is erroneous. This civil revision application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, which decided to prefer it to a Full Bench.

(2.) The question which arises for consideration by the Full Bench is as under :

(3.) The marginal note to this section is "Bar of suits." This section therefore ousts the jurisdiction of a civil Court in respect of the matters specified therein. It cannot therefore be said that S. 15 provides a remedy in addition to that available under the ordinary law. Clause (a) bars a suit when the claim made under S. 15 is under investigation either before the authority or in appeal. Clause (b) does the same when the employee has succeeded in his application and has obtained a direction in his favour. In view of Clause (c) no suit can lie when in the proceeding under S. 15 it is found that so sum it due to the employee. Clause (d) bare a suit when the sum claimed could have been recovered by an application under S. 15. The question, which we have to determine, is in regard to the interpretation of this Clause (d).