ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Sasaram, exercising powers under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, declining to dispose of the application of the workmen on a preliminary issue as requested by the petitioner employer is under challenge. The workman alleged that there was unauthorised deduction from his wages and sought relief before the said officer. The employer entered appearance and wanted the question of maintainability of such an application including the jurisdiction of the officer to hear it (issues 1 and 3) to be decided in the first instance as preliminary issues. The Sub-divisional Officer, however, rejected this prayer saying that these issues will be decided along with the other issues which deal with the merits of the case.

(2.) There were two previous Bench decisions of this Court dealing with the same subject matter and Mr. Lalnarain Sinha quite property invited our attention to both of them. In one, which is M. J. C. No. 891 of 1962 (Pat) disposed of on 29-6-1965. It was held that the issue about jurisdiction should have been decided as a preliminary issue as it goes to the very root of the jurisdiction. Hence that Bench directed the Sub-divisional Officer to decide as a preliminary issue the question about the maintainability of the application under the said Act. The other Bench decision is in M. J. C No. 890 of 1962 (Pat) disposed of on the 4-8-1965, where a decision of a litigation on a preliminary issue was deprecated relying on several decisions including (1863-66) 10 Moo Ind App 476 (PC), 50 Ind App 247: (AIR 1922 PC 405) and AIR 1954 SC 202 at p. 204 and it was held that on the facts of this case the Sub-divisional Officer was justified in declining to try the preliminary issue in the first instance and in directing that it should be heard along with all the issues in the usual manner. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha urged that the later Division, Bench should not have differed from the earlier Division Bench and that, if it thought that the earlier decision was wrong, it should have referred the case to a larger Bench. The law on the subject is laid down in Halsbury's Laws of England. 3rd edition. Volume 22, at page 799, as follows :--

(3.) Thus it may be taken as well settled that if an earlier Division Bench completely ignores previous decisions of the Privy Council and of the Supreme Court dealing with a question of law. Its decision will not be binding on the succeeding Division Bench. The position would doubtless have differed if the earlier Division Bench had noticed the decision of the Privy Council or Supreme Court and distinguished it, either expressly or impliedly. This point is specially noticed in the note at (k) al p 799 of Halsbury's as follows.