LABANGALATA DEI Vs. SK AZIZULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of Commissioner, Payment of Wages, balasore (Additional District Magistrate, Balasore) in Payment of Wages Act Case no. 1 of 1956 making an order that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the employer) should pay Rs. 165/- to the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the employee ). The said order was passed on an application made by the employee-opposite party under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act (Act iv) of 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE said employee, being the petitioner before the Commissioner, the opposite party herein, was a bus conductor in a private stage carriage belonging to the employer, being petitioner herein. The said employee made an application to the commissioner for a total sum of Rs. 275/- being his pay from February to May, 1956 at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month (Rs. 220/-) and one month's notice pay Rs. 55/-, aggregating the said sum of Rs. 275/ -. The Commissioner made an order in favour of the said employee for payment to him by the employer of a sum of Rs. 165/- within fifteen days from the date of the order. It is against this order of the commissioner that the present revision petition has been made by the said employer under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the employee-opposite party, by way of preliminary objection, that this application was not maintainable as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision. The proceedings originated with the claim made by the employee under Section 15 of the Act before the Commissioner appointed by the Provincial Government under the Act. The learned Counsel for the employee cited before me several cases in support of his proposition that the additional District Magistrate as Commissioner was not a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Civil procedure Code (Turabali v. V. Sorabji, AIR 1944 Nag-288 (A); B. Triloki Nath v. Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. , AIR 1946 All 276 (B)); Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd. v. Vishnu Pandurang, AIR 1950 Nag 14 (C ). In these cases it was held that a commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C. Hence, a revision application does not lie to the High Court from an order passed by the commissioner. His remedy was by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. But in the present case the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation being Rs. 165/-, no appeal lay to the District Court by reason of the provision of Section 17 (1) (a) of the Act which provided that the appeal by an employer or other person responsible for payment of wages lay if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeded Rs. 300/ -. It was argued on behalf of the employer that he had no other remedy except by way of an application under Section 115 C. P. C. The question whether or not he had any other remedy is another matter. But this Court, sitting in revision, cannot interfere with the decision of the Commissioner which is not a Court subject to superintendence of this Court as has been decided by the different High Courts, as aforesaid. The learned Counsel for the employer cited before me a decision of the lahore High Court in Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Shops v. K. G. Hashmat, AIR 1946 Lah 316 (FB) (D ). It appears that the Lahore case was dissented from, in AIR 1950 Nag 14 (C ). I prefer the reasoning given in the nagpur and Allahabad decisions cited above. A Patna decision in Mt. Dirji v. Smt. Goalin AIR 1941 Pat 65 (FB) (E) was also cited in this context. But in that case the question whether the Commissioner is a Court subordinate to the High Court in the sense in which the expression is used in Section 115 C. P. C. was Act argued before the Patna High Court and their Lordships did not decide that point. I, therefore, hold that this application for revision under Section 115 C. P. C. is not maintainable.