TURABALI Vs. V. SORABJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the non-applicant contends by way of preliminary objection that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision. The matter arises out of proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act (4 of 1936). The proceedings originated with a claim made by the non-applicant before me under Section 15 of the Act for a month's wages and for compensation for delayed payment. The application was made to the First Subordinate Judge, First Class, Amraoti. Preliminary objections as to limitation and non-disclosure of a cause of action were taken by the other side. These were decided against him. He has applied in revision against that decision. I am of opinion that whether the First Subordinate Judge, First Class, acted as a civil Court or not, a matter which is open to doubt, he was not a Court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C.

(2.) THE word "Court" was elaborately considered by a Patna Full Bench in Mt. Dirji v. Mt. Goalin A.I.R. 1941 Pat. 65 and according to the meaning assigned to it there I think the "authority" which decides disputes under the Payment of Wages Act is probably a "Court," and not only that, but a "civil Court." But whether such a "Court" would be subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 is a matter which the Full Bench does not touch. It expressly leaves that open: see pp. 389 and 393. Section 15(1), Payment of Wages Act, empowers the Provincial Government to appoint an "authority" to settle claims under the Act. This "authority"--that is the word used--can be (1) "any Commissioner for workmen's compensation," or (2) any "other officer with experience as a Judge of a civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate.

(3.) THE Provincial Government has appointed the First Subordinate Judge, First Class, of each district as the "authority" for each district by notification in the Central Provinces Gazette dated 19th February 1937, Part 1, page 202. That is how the First Subordinate Judge, First Class, Amraoti, came to be seised of this matter. But that did not in my opinion make these Subordinate Judges civil Courts functioning under the Civil Procedure Code. The Provincial Government has no power to create a Court. Only the Legislature or His Majesty can do that. Nor has it power to create special tribunals for the trial of disputes which would ordinarily be handled by the civil Courts. The Act creates the tribunal here, or the "authority" as it is called, and the Provincial Government merely nominates the presiding officer, as it is empowered to do by the Act. That does not make him a Court under the Civil Procedure Code. It so happens that the "authorities" here are Judges here, but they need be and it would be anomalous to hold that when the "authority" is a Judge the High Court will have control but none when he is a Revenue Officer or plain Mr. X.