SAUMYA RANJAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The only point involved in this application is whether application made by the com plainant in terms of S. 15(3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short, the 'Act') can be treated as a criminal complaint, or has to be dealt with by the concerned Court according to procedure applicable to a Court of Civil jurisdiction.

(2.) Section 15 of the Act deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vaxatious claims. State Government is empowered to appoint by a notification in the Official Gazette Presiding Officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'Industrial Act') or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settle ment of industrial disputes in force in the State, or any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the auth ority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages or delay in payment of the wages of persons employed or paid in that area including all matter incidental to such claims. Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Section deals with application to be made to such authority for a direction under Sub-Section (3) if allegation is that contrary to the provisions of Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person or any payment of wages has been delayed, a person who is affected or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under the Act, or any other person acting with the permis sion of the authority appointed under Sub-Section (1) can make such application. The proviso mandates that application is to be presented within twelve months from the date on which deduction from wages was made or from the date payment of wages was due to be made, as the case may be. The second proviso permits entertainment of the application after prescribed period of twelve months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-section (3) provides that if any application is entertained under Sub-Section (2), the authority shall hear the applicant and the em ployer or other persons responsible for payment of wages under S. 3 or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as may be deemed necessary, without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other per son is liable under the Act, direct the refund of the amount deducted or direct payment of delayed wags together with payment of such compensation as may be deemed proper. The maximum compensation is restricted to ten times amount deducted in the former case, and Rs. 25.00 in the latter.

(3.) Section 18 deals with the power of the auth ority appointed under S. 15. Since this is pivotal provision on which the present dispute revolves round, it needs to be extracted, and reads as follows :