SHIV SINGH Vs. HANS RAJ NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Shiv Singh, challenging the order of the Authority -appointed under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act of 1954 dismissing his petition under Section 21 of the Act.

(2.) THE Petitioner alleged that he was employed by the Respondent, a contractor named Hans Raj Nayar, as a truck driver for the period from the 1st of October, 1958, to 15th of February, 1959 at Rs. 150 per mensem. He claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,391.11 nP. was due to him including his ordinary wages from the 1st of December, 1958, to the 15th of February, 1959, together with Rs. 1,360.75 nP. on account of overtime during the whole period of his employment and Rs. 400 for work done on his workly off -day. His claim was denied by the employer who alleged that there was a break in the period of employment from the 1st to the 16th of December, 1958, and also denied that any sum was due on account of overtime or work done on off -days. He alleged that the Petitioner had been paid full wages for the period of employment and that also he had been entrusted with a sum of Rs. 95 on the 15th of February, 1959, for purchasing petrol and other things which he had misappropriated.

(3.) THE preliminary objection has been raised that no revision petition lies and that if the petition was to be treated as filed under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution it was bad on account of the fact that the Authority had not been impleaded as a Respondent. As a matter of fact, although in the memorandum of parties appended to the petition it was described as a civil revision, the printed opening sheet shows that the petition was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. In -spite of this the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that an order of the Authority under Section 21 of the Act is liable to be challenged by an ordinary revision petition under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, and on this point he relied on a decision of a Full Bench in Works Manager, Carriage and Wagon Shops, Moghalpura v. K.G. Hashmat : A.I.R. 1946 Lah 316, in which it was held that the Authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, of 1936, must be regarded as a Civil Court and a Court Subordinate to the High Court within the purview of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 44, Punjab Courts Act. It is, however, clear from the judgment that the provisos of the Payment of Wages Act, differ considerably from those of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, and some of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, which chiefly influenced the learned Judges in deciding that the Authority was a Court Subordinate to the High Court, do not exist in the Act now under consideration. In fact the only provision which appears to be common to both Acts is in relation to the functions of the Authority, and this provides that the authority shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and every such Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.