STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHAWANI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated April 3, 1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner in Appeal No. 90/1995 by which he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioners and modified the order dated May 6, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, Bikaner (for short 'the Authority') in the manner that he maintained that portion of the order dated May 6, 1995 granting wages of Rs.99,125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker but set aside that portion of the order dated May 6, 1995 granting compensation of Rs.99,125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: The respondent No. 1, Bhawani Shanker was employee of the petitioners and his services were terminated by the petitioners vide order dated December 31, 1988 and thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed claim before the Labour Court, Bikaner and the Labour Court, Bikaner through judgment and award dated October 26, 1993 allowed the claim of the respondent No. 1 and set aside the termination order dated December 31, 1988 and ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 in service with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, no doubt the respondent No. 1 was taken back in service, but benefits which were to be given to him were not paid by the petitioners and therefore, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1936") before the respondent No. 2 Authority claiming Rs.99,125/- as wages for the period from January 1, 1989 to May 31, 1994 and he also claimed compensation of Rs. 9,91,250/- as he was not paid the amount in time. Notices of that application filed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936 were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners filed their reply stating that since the judgment and award were passed by the Labour Court, therefore, respondent No. 2 Authority had no jurisdiction to grant relief as sought for by the respondent No. 1 and further, the claim as put forward by the respondent No. 1 was not covered by the definition of "wages" as defined in Section 2(vi) of the Act of 1936. Hence, it was prayed that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 be rejected. After hearing the parties, the learned Authority (respondent No. 2) through order dated May 6, 1995 rejected the contentions of the petitioners and granted Rs.99,125/- as wages and Rs.99,125/- as compensation total Rs. 1,98,250/- to the respondent No. 1 holding inter alia:

(3.) In this revision petition, two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners: