KALEKHAN MOHD FIRM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a partnership firm whereas petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. The firm carries on the business of manufacturing bidis in the State of M. P. The Assistant Labour Commissioner filed application Under Sections 15 (2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act stating therein that the petitioners did not pay bonus to its workmen in accordance with law. On receipt of the notice the petitioners filed their objection before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Objections of the petitioners were that application having been filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ought not to have taken cognizance of the same and proceeded with the matter. It was further contended that the claim made in the application was barred by limitation and bonus being not a wage, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The aforesaid objections of the petitioners were overruled by the impugned order dated 31-8-1984. Petitioners further contended that the matter being covered by the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, application Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. This objection was also overruled by order dated 6-2-1985. These two orders i. e. orders dated 31-8-1984 and 6-2-1985 are being impugned by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Employer) in the present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SHRI Menon appears on behalf of the petitioners and he could not point out any illegality in the order dated 31-8-1984. It is relevant here to state that in the order dated 31-8-1984 the authority has stated that amendment in the petition was allowed and after the amendment the petition shows that it has been filed by the Inspector. It is further held that bonus is a wage and therefore, application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was maintainable. As regards the question of limitation, it held that an issue has been framed and the same shall be answered at that stage. I do not find any error in the order dated 31-8-1984.

(3.) WHILE assailing the order dated 6-2-1985 learned counsel contends that as the matter is covered Under Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.