SAMBUNATH BATTACHARJEE Vs. ORIENT PAPER MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON appellate order in two appeals under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') one by the employee and the other by the employer resulting in dismissal of the application under Section 15 of the Act claiming unpaid wages and bonus, is grievance of the employee in these two revisions.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts at this stage are that petitioner was appointed as a Typist in office of the opposite party at Brajrajnagar. On December 17, 1985 an office order was issued transferring petitioner to Bhubaneswar office, which petitioner received on December 19, 1985. It was stated in the office order that petitioner was transferred with immediate effect and he was to report to Chief Resident Officer at Bhubaneswar who would allocate work to petitioner. When petitioner did not join till January 16, 1986, he was communicated that day that non-compliance of the order amounts to wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful orders. His entry into the factory premises amounts to unauthorised entry. His gossiping in the type section causes dislocation of work. Despite caution, he was signing the attendance register unauthorisedly. He was intimated that he would not be entitled to any salary from December 17, 1985 till he reports to duty at Bhubaneswar The petitioner was directed to report at Bhubaneswar within three days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner was prohibited from entering into the factory premises without specific permission. Receiving letter petitioner intimated that he has challenged the order in Court of Munsif and he should be allowed to work at Brajrajnagar till a final decision. He requested to pay his salary from Brajrajnagar. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed application under Section 15 of the Act for salary from December 17, 1985, bonus for 1985-86 and compensation. During pendency of the application suit was dismissed and appeal against the decree was also dismissed later.

(3.) IT is now settled in the decision reported in ILR (1910) Cut 587 Rameswar Lal v. Somendra Das, (1970) 36 CLT 260 District Transport Manager, State Transport v. Satrughnan Guru and (1992) CLT 73 165 (Gopabandhu Pati v. Executive Engineer, Orissa State Electricity Board, Bhadrak Electrical Division that revision lies against appellate order under Section 17 of the Act Thus, these two revisions are entertainable. Decision reported in AIR 1958 Orissa 123 Labangalata Dei v. Sfc Azizullah was distinguished in ILR (1970) Cut. 587 (supra) since the revision was against the order of authority under Section 15 and not under Section 17 of the Act.