UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was in railway service when he made his claim in the Court below on July 15, 1965. He claimed Rs. 242.53 Paise plus interest due to him for overtime work. He valued the suit for purposes of Court -fee at Rs. 242.53 paise. He did not calculate interest due to him on the amount he was claiming to the date of his plaint and did not pay Court -fee on that.

(2.) THE applicant raised a preliminary objection to the claim of the respondent that civil Court had no jurisdiction in the claim in view of section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act 4 of 1936), as the claim of the respondent comes within the scone of section 15 of that Act. This did not prevail with the learned trial Judge who by his order of February 14, 1966, came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction in the claim of the respondent. He said that he had carefully considered the provisions of sections 15 and 22 of the Act 4 of 1936 and had found that nothing in those provisions barred his jurisdiction. It is against the order of the learned trial Judge that the applicant has filed this revision application.

(3.) IN reply the respondent has urged two arguments. One is that where a claim is composite, partly coming within the jurisdiction of the authority under Act 4 of 1936 and partly within the jurisdiction of a civil Court, then the claim is triable by a civil Court; as held by the learned Judges in C. V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.A. Vasudeva Iyer : A.I.R. 1950 Mad. 369. The respondent says that his claim to interest is not within the jurisdiction of the authority under Act 4 of 1936, but can only be within the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil Court. So even if remuneration claimed by him for over -time work is 'wages' under section 2(vi) of Act 4 of 1936, the claim as regards interest is not 'wages' and, therefore, his suit being for a composite claim, the civil Court has jurisdiction to try it. In the first place, although the respondent has, while claiming the exact amount as remuneration for over -time work, added, to it 'plus interest', but he has not calculated interest up to the date of his plaint and has not paid any Court -fee on that. In substance, therefore, he had made no claim for interest before the civil Court. His claim in his plaint cannot be described as a composite claim. Apart from this, secondly, assuming that he can make a claim for interest that I consider is also within the scope of section 15 of Act 4 of 1936, because under sub -section (3) of section 15 he can claim compensation for deducted or delayed wages and interest is in the nature of claim of compensation. So this argument on the side of the respondent cannot be accepted.