MODERN MOVIE Vs. TEWARI (S B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Atricles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the sole point for consideration is whether the presiding officer, industrial tribunal, Bihar, exercising appellate powers under Sub -section (7) of Section 28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the competent authority exercising powers under Sub -section (2) of Section 28 of the Act and rejecting the claim of respondent 1 for unpaid wages duo to him from his employers, namely, the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a single Judge of this Court in United Provinces Commercial Corporation v. K.N. Mishra 1962 -II L.L.J. 338, which supports the view that under the aforesaid circumstances an appeal will not lie. The correctness of that decision was challenged before us by counsel for respondent 1,

(2.) Respondent 1 was admittedly a former employee of the petitioner. He filed an application under Section 28(1) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (who is a competent authority under the Act), alleging that the sum of Rs. 315 was due to him from his employer, being unpaid wages for the period from 1 November 1959 to 10 May 1960. The authority issued due notice to the employee, who opposed the claim, alleging that the employer ceased to work after 4 September 1959 and, that, conseauently, he was not entitled to any wages thereafter. The learned authority examined witnesses cited by both sides and also perused the documents filed by them in support of their respective contention. Ultimately he upheld the objection of the employer and passed the following order: On consideration of the above facts I do not find any merit in the claims of the applicant and accordingly the case is dismissed. On appeal, however, the presiding officer of the industrial tribunal disagreed with the finding of the employee (sic) to the effect that he was re -employed from 1 November 1959 to 10 May 1960, and directed payment of arrear wages due to him, which was calculated at Rs. 285. Before the appellate authority his jurisdiction to entertain the appeal was not challenged, presumably because his judgment was delivered on 30 October 1961 whereas the aforesaid single Judge judgment was delivered on 2 November 1961.

(3.) The Act is undoubtedly a piece of beneficent legislation meant primarily for the benefit of the persons employed in shops and other establishments. It regulated the hours of work for the employees, intervals for rest, weekly holidays, leave with wages and other conditions of service. Arbitrary termination of the services of the employee was also restricted by Section 26. Section 28 provided a summary remedy for the employee if there has been an unauthorized deduction of his wages or undue delay in payment of the same. As the legal question involved in this application depends on the construction of Section 28, I may quote below Sub -secs. (1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of the section: