MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR Vs. RAM PRAKASH DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated June 3, 2002 of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in Case No. 4/P. W. Act/2001 by which the earlier Case No. 19/P.W. Act/99 has been restored to its original number and it has been fixed for recording the evidence. Respondent No. 1 Ram Prakash Dubey submitted an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for a direction to the non-applicant Maharishi Vidya Mandir to pay his salary for the months of April and May, 1999. According to the applicant he was reinstated in service by the Labour Court, Sagar by award dated 16/02/1999 in Case No. 41/97/I. D.R. Notice of this application was issued to the non-applicant. In the reply it has been stated by the non-applicant that he has submitted an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte award. The authority by order dated 31/07/2001 rejected the application on the ground that the certified copy of the award dated 16/02/1999 was not produced before it. The applicant then submitted another application describing it to be an application for "review" under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. The reply to this application was also submitted. After hearing both the sides the authority by the impugned order held that the application under Section 15(2) of the Act was wrongly rejected for non-submission of the certified copy of the award and, therefore, restored the earlier case for fresh decision.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no provision in the Act for review of any order by the authority and, therefore, the impugned order is not according to law. On the other hand it is submitted that the authority has the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the interest of justice.

(3.) The learned counsel for both the sides have been heard. It is true that the applicant submitted the application describing it to be under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. This provision by its own force is not applicable for review by the authority. But in the opinion of this Court, the authority did not commit any grave error in restoring the earlier application and, therefore, the impugned order (sic) is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has not been clothed specifically with the power to review its own order, but it can always correct its error in the interest of justice. The authority could have given an opportunity to the applicant to produce the certified copy of the award instead of dismissing the application on that ground alone. The officer exercising the powers as an authority under the Payment of Wages Act is same who presided over the Labour Court by which the award in question was passed. Therefore, the authority could have verified from its own record whether the award, as stated by the applicant, was in reality passed or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Narshi Thakershi Patel v. Pradyumansinghji AIR 1970 SC 1273 : 1971 (3) SCC 844 in which it has been held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. This dictum has been followed in several subsequent decisions. But in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal AIR 1981 SC 606 : 1980 Supp SCC 420 : 1981-I-LLJ-327 a distinction has been drawn between (a) procedural review and (b) review on merits. It has been held that the expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely,