P M DIXIT Vs. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application arising under the Payment of Wages Act is preferred by original opponents Nos. 1 and 3 against whom, along with opponent No.2, the original application was filed by the Senior Inspector of Factories. The first and the second opponents were described as co-owners of a mill called the Vimal Mills Ltd. at Ahmedabad and the third was described as the manager. It was filed to recover Rs. 2,000 and odd as the delayed wages of workers in the mill under s, 15 of the Act under which the authority, in this case the Stipendiary Magistrate, is to hear the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under Section 3, and, after such further inquiry as may be necessary, direct the payment of the delayed wages.

(2.) VARIOUS defences were taken on behalf of the opponents. One of them was that the owner or employer, who was opponent No.1, (opponent No.2 was not found to be a co-owner), could not be impleaded in the application under Section 15.It was further contended that the application, which was originally filed in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, was transferred by the District Magistrate to the Court of the City Magistrate, and that the District Magistrate had no power to direct such transfer. It was also contended that the mill was not working at the material time for which the application was made, namely, the period between March 28, 1937, to April 30, 1937, and that therefore the mill authorities were not liable to pay any wages to the workers.

(3.) THE learned District Judge has rejected the appeal on all the grounds and has confirmed the order of the learned City Magistrate. With regard to opponent No.1, the learned Judge does feel a difficulty in passing the order as against the employer, i. e. appellant No.1 before him, and he says that the contention as urged by him is correct, but though the proceedings under Section 15 were to foe taken against the person responsible, namely, the manager, still as the trial Court had directed that the employer was liable only for that much of the amount which could not be recovered from the manager, there was no illegality in that order. Besides, appellant No.1 had no right of appeal as no appeal by an employer against an order passed under Section 19 of the Act had been provided. On the other points the learned Judge has confirmed the findings of the Magistrate and held that part of the mill was working till April 30, and that the original opponent No.3 continued to work as manager during that whole period. With regard to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to make the transfer, the learned Judge was rather doubtful as to who was the officer who could make an order for transfer in this case, but as the City Magistrate was one of the authorities mentioned in Section 15 (i), who could take cognizance of the application under that section, he was of opinion that there was no illegality because ultimately the Magistrate who tried the case was a Magistrate who had jurisdiction to do so under the section.