G MALLIKHARJUNA AND SONS Vs. G GANGADHARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed an application before the District Munsif, Chirala, Authority under the Shops and Establishments Act, under Sec.44 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (1966 Act, for short) for payment of gratuity, compensation, for wrongful deduction of wages etc.

(2.) A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition, was raised by the petitioner in I.A. No.1868/91 to frame a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction, that is, that after the repeal of 1966 Act by A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 ('1988 Act', for short) the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as the authority appointed under Sec.50 of 1988 Act alone is competent and also on the ground that the application under Section 44 of 1966 Act is not maintainable. The application was dismissed holding that the District Munsif is competent under Sec.43 of the Act to decide all questions, including determination of jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the repeal of 1966 Act, the application filed under the old Actof 1966 the District Munsif was not competent to entertain the same. It is further submitted that the District Munsif is hot the competent authority to go into the question as 1988 Act came into force with effect from 1-11-1988, and by the date of filing of the application on 31-7-90 under S.50 of 1988 Act, the Government may, by a notification, appoint an authority to decide the claims arising out of deductions from the wages or delay in payment of wages or service compensation payable under this Act in any establishment. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that by virtue of Sec.79 of 1988 Act, the appointment of the District Munsif to determine the matters was saved, and the proceedings before the District Munsif have to be continued and completed as if the old Act, that is, 1966 Act, had not been repealed, but continued to be operative. He further submitted that the provision quoted in the application will be amended and that quoting a wrong provision is not fatal to the application.