TARA CHAND Vs. GH RASUL BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application against an order passed by the D. J. Kathua under S. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act remanding the suit for a fresh inquiry before the Authority under the Act.

(2.) MR . Sangra appearing in support of the rule raised a short point before me. He submitted that under S. 17 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act of 1936 it is clearly provided that an appeal shall lie against the order of the authority within 30 days of the date on which the order was made. In the instant case the order of the authority was passed on 9 -11 -72 but the appeal was filed on 30 -12 -1972 and the appellate court appears to have condoned the delay purporting to Act under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well settled that where a special statute provides for a separate period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act are excluded by necessary intendment and unless there is any provision in that special statute applying all or any of the provisions of the Limitation Act, the court will not be justified in invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act. The learned judge thus mis -directed himself in importing the provisions of S. 5 into an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act which does not apply the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, but being a self contained statute contains various terms and conditions for filing of appeals. In the absence of there being any provision in the Act, applying the provisions of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, it was not open to the appellate court to invoke the provisions of the Limitation Act for the purpose of condoning the delay. In these circumstances, there to be, the appeal before the learned D. J. was clearly time -barred and should therefore have been dismissed. The order of the D. J. therefore suffers from a clear error jurisdiction and is therefore set aside. The order of the Authority under the payment of Wages Act is restored. As nobody appears for the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.

(3.) THE rule is accordingly made absolute.