CONTROLLER OF TELECOM STORES BSNL Vs. CHINTAHARAN HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order dated February 27, 2012 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Kolkata, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition inter alia praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind and cancel the said order and a writ in the nature of Prohibition restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect thereto. The brief facts necessary for appreciating the crux of the problem is that the respondents nos. 1 to 87 are the employees of the department of Post and Telegraphs, now working in the office of BSNL. They along with 26 other employees had taken out an application in the year 1985 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Kolkata (the Authority, for short) praying for a direction to refund the deducted wages. During the pendency of the proceeding 26 applicants had expired. On Februarys 27, 2012 the said Authority passed the order allowing the application under Section 14 of the said Act on contest.

(2.) This order has been the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. According to them the service condition of the industrial employees are governed by the certified standing orders. It has been assailed also on the ground that the Authority did not have the jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act (the Act, for short) to deal with the claim for refund of deducted wages. The applicants were all employees of the Telegraph department and in the central government service and, therefore, Central Administrative Tribunal was the proper authority having jurisdiction and power to deal with the grievances. The petitioner has also alleged breach of Clause VII of certified standing order.

(3.) The dispute can only be resolved by the Chief Labour Commissioner, Central, who is the appellate authority in the said standing order. According to the petitioner the respondents should have filed an appeal in respect of their claim for refund of the deducted wages before the Chief Labour Commissioner, Central or before the Central Administrative Tribunal. They have referred to judicial pronouncements in support of their proposition that for breach of any provision of the certified standing order special law overrides the general law. The petitioner has relied on a judgement, dated September 1, 1009 of the Supreme Court passed in General Manager, Telecom -Vs.- M. Krishnan and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004) as also a judgement, dated December 13, 2011 of this court in Accounts Officer, TR III office of Area Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited -Vs.- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (MAT No. 1224 of 2011) and urged that in view of the special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act the consumer forum and different courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act had been specifically excluded. Stretching this submission the petitioner argued that since in view of the special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Telegraph Act the Supreme Court did not permit entertaining a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act is also totally barred. According to the petitioner if for the redressal of the grievance the statute has provided the Central Administrative Tribunal as the appropriate forum the special provision pertaining to jurisdiction will have precedence over the general law. From this the petitioner argued that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to deal with the present dispute.