BHAGWAN DAS AND ANOTHER Vs. CHABILL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that requires determination in this Revision Petition is whether against the order made by the competent authority under Section 37-A of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act (10 of 1951), an appeal lies to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court or to the District Court. A claim was instituted before the competent Authority under the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act in respect of the service rendered by the petitioner herein as an employee of the Mukund Rice Mill at Bhiknur. The claim was decreed by the competent authority. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed to the Chief Judge. Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 304/3 of 1961. The learned Chief Judge held that he was not competent to entertain the appeal, and in that view dismissed the same. The revision petition is directed against this order.

(2.) According to Section 37-A of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, the provisions of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have been made applicable to claims arising under the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act. Recently, a Bench of this Court in Hyderabad Handloom Weavers Central Co operative Association Ltd. Hyderabad v. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act, Andhra Pradesh, 1962-2 Andh WR 89 : A.I.R. 1962 Andhra Pradesh 388 held that right of appeal as provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is available to proceedings under Section 37-A of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, but the question as to the forum of appeal, which did not arise in that case, was not considered. Under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, an appeal has been provided in the case of Presidency town before the Court of Small Causes, and elsewhere before the District Court. "Presidency town" has been defined in Section 3, Clause (25) of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act as "the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras", so that under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, the Court of Small Causes in the City of Hyderabad is not competent to entertain an appeal. But, according to Rule 19 of the Rules framed under Section 26(3)(L) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, an appeal in the prescribed form against a direction made by an authority may be preferred within a period of 30 days in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to the Court of Small Causes and to the District Court elsewhere. This Rule does not seem to be consistent with Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the provisions of Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, Rule 19 would not be attracted. The Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act does not provide for appeals, but as stated in the ruling cited above, the Rule has been extended to proceedings arising under the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act. In view of this divergence between the Rules framed and the statutory provision, I think it is proper to refer the matter to a Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Post before Bench.ORDER OF THE BENCH

(3.) Chandra Reddy, C.J. : The question that poses itself in this Civil Revision Petition is whether there is repugnancy between Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and Rule 19 of the Rules framed under Section 26(3)(L) of the Act as amended in 1959, and it arises in the following circumstances.