BRHAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a person appointed as an authority under Section 15 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, must imperatively have experience as a Judge of the Civil Court or a stipendiary Magistrate is the sole question that has been agitated in these two connected Writ Petitions Nos. 1855 of 1969 and 1224 of 1970.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agreed that the determination of the above-said legal question would govern both these writ petitions. Mr. J. S. Chawla on behalf of the same writ petitioner in both the petitions has hence confined himself to the facts of Civil Writ No. 1224 of 1970. In order to appreciate the legal controversy, it deserves notice that the petitioner is the Management Director of the University Victory Bus Service Private Ltd. , and respondent No. 4, Chaudhry Ram was an employee of the company above-said. A dispute regarding the quantum of wages due to respondent No. 4 arose between the parties and the latter approached the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Ambala, which proceeding was decided in his favour vide annexure 'a'. In compliance with this decision of the authority, the petitioner made the directed payments to respondent No. 4, but thereafter proceeded to give notice to him as mentioned in order, annexure 'a' and then reduced his salary with effect from 1st of February, 1967, Respondent No. 4 aggrieved by this reduction in his emoluments submitted three applications claiming the difference of his wages from October, 1966, onwards under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court at Faridabad. During the pendency of the said proceedings, by a decision of this Court the appointment of Shri P. N. Thukral as the Presiding Officer of the said Court was declared illegal. Respondent No. 4 thereupon moved another application before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer who was also appointed authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming the same relief which he had earlier sought from the Labour Court at Faridabad. When respondent Nos. 2 and 3 commenced proceedings on behalf of the petitioner, two preliminary objections were raised regarding the maintainability of the application moved by respondent No. 4. The following issues were framed in this regard:1. Whether the appointment of the present Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer as authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not valid and whether he is not qualified for the appointment as such? 2. Whether the claims referred to in items Nos. 1 to 3 in the Annexure are pending before the Labour Court, Faridabad, and such application to that extent is not maintainable? In the context of issue No. 2, respondent No. 4 made a statement before the authority that he did not want to pursue his case before the Labour Court even if the Presiding Officer thereof is appointed and that he wanted to plead his case before the authority only and in no other jurisdiction. Vide annexure 'd' dated the 27th of March. The authority under the Act decided both the above-said issues against the petitioner and the case was fixed for further evidence. It was thereupon that the present petition was moved on the 20th of April, 1970.

(3.) THE main ground on which this petition has been pressed is that respondent No. 3 is only a Graduate and does not possess any experience as a Judge of Civil Court or a Stipendiary Magistrate, which it is alleged is the necessary qualification for appointment under Section 15 (1) of the Act. it is averred that the mere fact that respondent No. 3 held the post of Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not sufficient compliance with the statute prescribing the requisite qualification for the authority so appointed. It has also been averred that the claim of respondent No. 4 being still pending before the Labour Court, Faridabad, cannot, therefore, be agitated before the authority under the act.