A HASAN Vs. MOHAMMAD SHAMSUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in revision has been presented by one A. Hasan, proprietor & director of the Sasamoosa Sugar Works Limited. It arises out of a proceeding under the Payment of Wages Act (iv [4] of 1986). The opposite party to the petition are the General Secretary of the Sasamoosa Workers' Union representing the daily coolies of the Sugar Works Limited and one Dhunmun.

(2.) The facts are briefly these : On the 12th of April, 1950, a number of workers of the Sugar Works presented several petitions before the District Magistrate of Saran, who is the prescribed Authority within the meaning of the Act claiming that a deduction of wages had been made without any legal justification during specified periods for which they had been working, and that accordingly these amounts which were justly due to them should be realised from the Sugar Works concerned. Another such petition was also, presented to the same Authority on the 25th of August, 1960, by another set of workers. The Authority concerned admitted the applications and issued notice against the petitioner and one S. M. Zaki, described at one place in the petition as the General Secretary and at another place as the General Manager of the Sasamoosa Sugar Works Limited. When the case was taken up on the 6th of October, 1950, the petitioner who appeared on the date seems to have raised preliminary objections that the application under the Act (Section 15) was not maintainable as proper persons were not parties to the applications and further that the application was time-barred. The Prescribed Authority aforesaid disallowed these objections. The petitioner then wanted time to examine accounts and to produce witnesses, and the said Authority adjourned the case to be put up on the 2nd of November, 1950. It may be observed that the two objections on the date in question were raised orally without any regular petition stating all the material facts bearing on them. The applicants, who are opposite party here, filed in reply a petition praying that Mohammad Qasim Lari may be made a party to the applications to avoid any technical objection. Later, on 12-10-1950, after the above order had been passel, a written petition was actually filed before the Authority mentioning the particulars on which the preliminary objections were based. The allegation in this petition is that one Mohammad Qasim Lari had been named as the manager of the factory under Clause (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 9, Factories Act (XXV [25] of 1935) corresponding to Section 7 of the Act of 1948, & that the said Qasim Lari, was responsible for payment of wages to the parsons employed in the factory. Therefore, it stated that the said Qasim Lari should have been made a party to the applications filed by the workers, & he being not a party, the applications could not be entertained. It was also alleged that the applications were barred by limitation within the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15, Payment of Wages Act. This petition the Authority directed to be put up for hearing in the presence of the parties on the date fixed, that is, 2-11-1950, & the application has not yet been disposed of. Before the application could be taken up, on 1-11-1950, the petitioner moved this Court & obtained a rule as also an order for stay of further proceedings.

(3.) It would thus appear from the facts stated above that the petition filed on 12-10-1950, containing the preliminary objections is still pending, & it was, therefore, premature on the part of the petitioner to rush up to this Court & obtain a rule as also a stay of further proceedings without disclosing the fact that a regular petition containing the objections aforesaid was still pending consideration by the Authority competent to hear & decide the matter. It is pointed out that under Section 15, Sub-section (3), Payment of Wages Act, it is not necessary that the objections should be raised in the form of a regular petition & the preliminary objections having been raised & disallowed by the order, dated 6-10-1950, the petitioner was entitled to move this Court against the afore-said order. It is true that a petition in writing is not necessarily required under the Act in order to raise such objections but the order complained against does not indicate what the two preliminary objections were; & at any rate, unless the full particulars had been given, this Court was not in a position to know what were the actual arguments advanced before the said Authority, & whether or not all the relevant materials were placed before him. The fact that subsequently such a regular petition was filed containing the particulars indicates that at the earliest" stage the Authority was not presumably apprised of the details & the matter is still pending consideration by him. The grounds of objection may be tenable or untenable ; it is for the Authority to pronounce upon the validity of those grounds. But before the Authority does so, it must have all the facts on which the objections are founded. In the absence of those facts, it was impossible for the Authority to entertain the objections. It appears to me, therefore, that the present application filed by the petitioner is premature & the proper course for the petitioner was to wait until the petition filed by him on the 12th of October last had been heard & disposed of on the date fixed by the Authority.