(1.) This petition has been filed by 118 workmen employed by respondent 1, the Bombay Gas Company, Ltd. The petitioners seek to challenge under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution a decision given by the Bombay Small Cause Court as the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
(2.) The facts leading to this petition are these : Petitioners 1 to 14 are employed by the respondent-company as syphon pumpers. Petitioners 15 to 8o are the workers of the mains department of the respondent-company. These petitioners (petitioners 1 to 80) filed applications for the payment of overtime wages to the authority under the payment of Wages Act. The applications were heard and disposed of by the additional authority under that Act. Petitioners 81 to 118 are workers of the mains, heating appliances and fittings department of the of the respondent-company. They filed applications for payment of wages for weekly offdays to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act these applications were heard and disposed of by the third additional authority. In both the groups of cases the claims of the workers were based on the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. In both the groups of cases the respondent-company contended that the workers were not covered by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act and also that the claims made by them were barred on account of an award which was made on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act by the industrial tribunal (Sri I. G. Thakore) on 30 March, 1950. In the cases of petitioners 1 to 80, who had applied for overtime wages, the additional authority held that the claims for overtime wages were not barred by the award, but that the applicants were not covered by the Shops and Establishments Act as claimed by them. The additional authority, therefore, rejected all the applications. Appeals were filed by these petitioners to the Bombay Small Cause Court from this order of the additional authority. In the applications filed by petitioners 81 to 118 for the payment of wages for weekly offdays, the third additional authority held that the claims were not barred by the award and that the workers could claim the rights conferred by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The third additional authority, therefore, allowed the application and gave directions for certain amounts being paid to the applicants. An appeal from this order was preferred by the respondent-company to the Bombay Small Cause Court.
(3.) The Bombay Small Cause Court consolidated these appeals and disposed them of by a common judgment. The Court held that the petitioners were employed in a "commercial establishment" as defined by the Shops and Establishments Act and could claim the benefit of the provisions of that Act. The Court, however, further held that the claim for overtime wages of petitioners 1 to 80 as well as the claim for wages for weekly offdays of petitioners 81 to 118 were both barred by the award. Accordingly the Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-company and dismissed all the applications filed by the petitioners.