PENTALA KOTIAH Vs. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Pentala Kotayya, has filed this petition praying for quashing the proceeding in the Court of the learned VIth City Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 182 of 1965 on his file.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows: An authority duly empowered to act under the Payment of Wanes Act, passed an order on 26-10-1963 in file No. 2437/63 (Case No. 29/63) directing that the respondent, Pentala Kotayya, should pay an amount of Rs. 1,125 as retrenchment compensation to the petitioner, Bogavarapu Ammaya (an ex-employee of the petitioner herein) who was employed in a tobacco shop of which the petitioner, Pentala Kotayya was the owner. At the instance of the said authority, the learned VIth City Magistrate registered Crl. M. P. No. 182 of 1965 and issued a notice to the petitioner, Pentala Kotayya directing him to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,125 on or before 13-8-1965. Obviously, the learned Magistrate was proceeding under Section 15 (5) (b) of the Payment of Wages Act (Central Act IV of 1936). The Petitioner, Pentala Kotayya appeared by an advocate before the learned Magistrate and filed a petition contending that the amount sought to be recovered from him was not an amount which could be collected under Section 15 (5) (b) of the Act and that only wages could be collected by resort to that provision. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended before the learned Magistrate that the matter involved a question of jurisdiction and that it should be decided either by the learned Magistrate himself or that a reference might be made to the High Court. The learned Magistrate issued a warrant on the same day for attachment of the movables in the residence of the said Pentala Kotayya. Thereupon the petitioner herein filed the present petition in this Court under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C.

(3.) The correctness of the order passed by the authority dated 26-10-1963 is not challenged before me. No appeal was filed against that order as provided for in the Act. The only contention raised before me is that the amount concerned is not an amount which can he recovered under Section 15 (5) (b) of the Act. The order of the authority shows that the amount is awarded as retrenchment compensation. It is not contended before me that the amount is not due as retrenchment compensation. I proceed on the basis that the amount of retrenchment compensation has been awarded by the authority and can be lawfully collected from the petitioner.