DISTRICT TRANSPORT MANAGER STATE TRANSPORT Vs. SATRUGHANA GURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE party Satrughana Sahu, who is a driver of the State Transport Service. Sambalpur filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Wages Act) through the General Secretary of the All orissa Transport Employees Union, Sarnbalpur for realisation of Rs. 15,601. 30 p. towards his dues on account of his claim for extra wages in respect of the work done on days of rest and public holidays amounting to Rs. 1418-30 and compensation of ten times the claim amounting to Rs. 14,183-00, thus making the total of Rs. 15,601-30 p. . The period for which the claim was made was from the 1st August, 1958 up to the 30th June, 1962. The petitioner opposed the application inter alia on the grounds that the opposite party driver being a government servant is not entitled to claim extra wages for the work done on public holidays and weekly rest days, that he is governed by the provisions of the orissa Service Code and other rules framed by the Government of Orissa and that the provisions of the Wages Act are not applicable to him. It was also contended that the claim is not correct and is not maintainable in law and is also barred by limitation prescribed in the first proviso to Sub-sections (2) of Section 15 of the wages Act. It was lastly contended that as the claim does not arise out of deduction from wages or delay in payment of the same, the provisions of the wages Act are not applicable to him.

(2.) THE matter was enquired into by the Authority appointed under Section 15 of the Wages Act and he held that the claim up to 10-2-1962 is barred by time as that portion of the claim relates to a period which is beyond six months from the date of presentation of the application and that the claim for the period beginning from 11-2-1962 upto 30-6-1962 is in time. Regarding the merits of the claim he relied on Sections 19, 20, 25 and 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Workers Act) which was enforced in this State with effect from 1-2-1962 and held that the opposite party was entitled to a day of rest for every period of seven days or in lieu thereof compensatory rest days as provided in the Workers Act and after consideration of the duty chart (Ext A) which shows the days on which the opposite party had worked, he came to the conclusion that the opposite party had worked on 9 weekly rest days for which he is entitled to extra wages. As there was no dispute that the daily wage of the opposite party was Rs. 3-60 p. per day he found him entitled to a total amount of rs. 32-40 p. towards extra wages. He also allowed him a tike amount towards compensation and ultimately passed an order allowing the claim to the extent of rs. 64. 80 p.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 252 of 1965 in this Court, praying that the order passed by the authority should be set aside. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the opposite party that an Authority appointed under Section 15 (1) of the Wages Act is not a Court and much less a court subordinate to the High Court and that therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to revise an order passed by such Authority. During the hearing on this preliminary point, the petitioner filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution stating that the order passed by the Authority is without jurisdiction and should therefore be quashed. This application is numbered as OJC no. 742 of 1969. Civil Revision 252/65 and O. J. C. No. 742/69 Were analogously heard and this order would govern both.