MEJHIA SAHANI Vs. CALCUTTA PORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order dated August 21, 1975 in P. W. A. Case No. 132 of 1971. By this order the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Bengal rejected the application for claim filed by the petitioners as not maintainable. The reason which has been given in support of the decision is as follows:

(2.) IT was on this basis the claim was so rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the definition of 'employed person' includes his legal representative under the provision of Section 2 (i) of the Act. The definitions of Payment of Wages act under Section 2 (vi) includes all remuneration (whether by way of salary allowances, of otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied were fulfilled be payable to the person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes various remunerations which have been mentioned therein. It has also been provided that the wages will not include any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which have been accrued thereon. Sub-section (4-A) of Section 15 of the Act is as follows: 'where there is any dispute as to the person or persons being the legal representative or representatives of the employer or of the employed person, the decision of the authority on such dispute shall be final'.

(3.) THIS provision clearly indicates that in case of any dispute in regard to the claim of Wage by the legal representatives, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is competent to decide the question and his decision shall be final. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to us certain decisions wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction of the authority is extended to all matters incidental to such claims. But the limited jurisdiction of the authority should not be unreasonably extended in the garb of deciding incidental matters. In other words, if a question involves a prolonged enquiry or enquiry into complicated questions of law and fact the authority under the Payment of Wages Act would refuse to exercise his jurisdiction. This has been held in Shri Kamal Prasanna Roy and others v. Shri Maurice Hyam (77 CWN 64 ). The Supreme Court in Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjain v. Surajmal Mehta, Director, The Barnagar Electric Supply and Industrial Co. Ltd. and another (1968 18 FLR 284=air 1969 SC 590) has also observed as follows: "it is also true that while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to the. claim or not care should be taken neither to unduly expand nor curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority". There are decisions of other high Courts which have followed the above principles.