GENERAL MOTOR-OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. MAHAMOODKHAN VAZIRKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the General Motor-owners' Association through its manager against the order of the Payment of Wages Authority directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 300 to respondent 1 together with the costs of the application. The short facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent 1 was in the employment of the petitioner as a bus-driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 60. When he was on duty outside, he was to get a sum of Rs. 90 as allowance. Respondent 1 apparently appeared to be employed from time to time as and when necessary and his employment was a casual employment. He was dismissed from service on 26 December, 1955. He then made an application under S. 41 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, read with rule 36 of the rules framed by the State Government for a declaration that the change effected by the petitioner in respect of his employment was an illegal change. The district industrial court made a declaration on 30 March, 1960. The petitioner went in appeal. The State industrial court expressed the opinion that the employment of respondent 1 was of a casual nature, but it held that even so he could be dismissed only after holding a proper enquiry as required under the standing orders, and since no enquiry was held, the change was an illegal change. It confirmed the order of the district industrial court. Respondent 1 then filed an application before the Payment of Wages Authority for recovering his wages for the period 26 December, 1955 to 30 March, 1960, which ultimately came to be dismissed on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act was not applicable to motor transport industry. Thereafter he has raised a suit for recovering the wages of that period. Later, after the Payment of Wages Act was made applicable to this industry, he filed the present application claiming a sum of Rs. 3,750 for the period 1 April, 1960 to 30 April, 1962 at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. The petitioner raised several contentions including the one that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to award any amount under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It was further contended that the claim was barred by limitation. The Payment of Wages Authority held that the amount claimed fell within the definition of the term "wages," that it had jurisdiction and that the claim was not time-barred in respect of a sum of Rs. 300. The Court awarded the wages for a period of two months from 1 March, 1962, the date on which the Act came into force.

(2.) Sri Mohta contends that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority inasmuch as what is claimed by respondent 1 cannot be wages within the meaning of the definition of "wages," contained in S. 2(vi). He further contends that the Payment of Wages Authority's jurisdiction to hear and decide claims is limited to claims arising out of deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages of persons employed and matters incidental to such claims. According to him, in order that a person should be entitled to claim wages under the Payment of Wages Act he must be employed during the period during which the claim arises.

(3.) The word "employed person" has been defined in S. 2(1) and includes the legal representative of a deceased employed person. This definition must indicate when read with the terms of S. 15(1) that the Payment of Wages Authority can have jurisdiction to determine the questions if the claim arises in respect of wages of a person who is actually employed by the employer. Section 15(2) also speaks of "wages of an employed person." Similarly, S. 15(3), proviso (a), and Sub-section (4) refer to "employed person." Section 20 imposes a penalty for the contravention of the provisions of the Act by a person "being responsible for the payment of wages to an employed person." It is doubtful if under the circumstances even a deeming provision will make S. 15 applicable. In our view, if there is a claim which smells of some other kind of claim, the Payment of Wages Authority would not have authority to entertain the claim.