NAMDEO SHRAWAN LOKHANDE Vs. CHOCKS CANNING AND MINING LTD
LAWS(BOM)-1962-1-3
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 09,1962

NAMDEO SHRAWAN LOKHANDE Appellant
VERSUS
CHOCKS CANNING AND MINING LTD. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner Namdeo Shrawan Lokhande was employed by opponent 1, the Chocks Canning and Mining, Ltd. , Motibagh, Nagpur. He was dismissed from service by an order passed on 6 June, 1956, with effect from 1 June, 1956. The petitioner took no steps to get the order set aside under S. 16. of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, nor did he claim back-wages with six months as provided by sub-section (2) of S. 16. But the petitioner made an application to the district industrial court for a declaration that the dismissal amounted to an illegal change and that the change should be declared to be illegal. This declaration was granted to the petitioner. Consequent upon the declaration that the change was illegal, the petitioner filed an application under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the payment of Wages Authority at Nagpur claiming wages for the period from May 1956 to the end of November 1956, that is to say, the date on which he made his application to the Payment of Wages Authority.
(2.)THE application under S. 15 was dismissed by the Payment of Wages Authority on 30 November, 1959, on the short ground that the petitioner had not obtained any order of reinstatement nor an order for back-wages and that, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to receive wages for a period for which he had not worked. The authority referred to the definition of was contained in S. 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. That view of the authority was confirmed by the appellate authority, the Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur, by his order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 250 of 1959 on 11 August, 1960. It was against those orders of the authorities below that the present petition was filed on 9 January 1961.
(3.)NO doubt, there has been some delay in the filing of the petition in so far as the appellate order which is the operative order before us was passed on 11 August, 1960 while the petition was filed on 9 January, 1961. But the delay has been explained by the petitioner in Para. 6 of petitioner which has been supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in Para. 6 supported as they are by an affidavit we accept the explanation. There has been no appearance on behalf of the opponents and no counter-affidavit filed. The delay, in our opinion, cannot affect the prosecution of the present petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.