G RAGHUNATHMAL BANK LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of an order passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad in M. P. No. 806 of 1972 an application filed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 1178 of 1975 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to these writ petitions are J. Ramsingh, who will hereafter be referred to as the 'employee' was an employee of G. Raghunathmal Bank Limited, Hyderabad. He was working in the position of Manager-cum-Officer on Special Duty. His service was terminated by the Bank on 16-5-1959 for certain acts of misconduct committed by him. At the time of the termination he was drawing a salary of Rs. 548/-. per month. Subsequent to his termination, G. Raghunathmal Bank Limited was amalgamated into Canara Bank with effect from 4-9-1961. The order of the termination was challenged by the employee before the High Court and the High Court upheld the order of termination. He then approached the Authority under the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, 1951 under Section 36 of the Act claiming various benefits. The application of the employee was opposed by the Canara Bank. The application was allowed and the Authority granted a sum of Rupees 50,502-11 ps. as gratuity and back wages. The Canara Bank filed Writ Petition No. 2524 of 1969 in the High Court questioning the jurisdiction of the Authority to grant relief under Section 36 of the Hyderabad Shops and Establishments Act, 1951. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellate Court (City Civil Court, Hyderabad) before whom the appeal was pending, to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the judgment in the Writ Petition. The employee carried the matter in Writ appeal. That writ Appeal was also dismissed. So also was the application for the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court allowed the appeal preferred by the Canara Bank except for an amount of Rs, 2,365-23 ps. which amount the Bank had paid to the employee. On 28-12-1972 the employee filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,27,574-40 comprising of Rs. 3562/- towards gratuity for the period from 1946 to 1959, Rs. 35,620/- towards compensation of 10 times the gratuity amount and Rs. 83,392-40 ps. towards subsequent wages. The claim of gratuity was said to have been made in pursuance of the Sastry Award. The claim was resisted by the Bank contending inter alia that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the application as the employee was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court rejected all other claims excepting the claim of gratuity of Rs. 3,288/- which was allowed. The compensation of ten times the gratuity under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, amounting to Rs. 32,880/- was also granted. Aggrieved against the decision of the Labour Court, the Bank has filed Writ Petition No. 5235 of 1974 and the employee has filed Writ Petition No. 1178 of 1975. Therefore, they have been heard together and shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr. Sreenivasa Murthy appearing for the Bank does not, in so far as payment of gratuity of Rs. 3,288/-is concerned, question the validity of the order, He, however, submits that the amount of compensation awarded under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is illegal as the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act cannot be invoked by the employee in this case in view of the bar enacted in Section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act. It is, therefore, necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act.