HAJI LATIF GANI NAGPUR Vs. ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHAN
LAWS(BOM)-1962-10-10
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 12,1962

Haji Latif Gani Nagpur Appellant
VERSUS
Abdul Rashid Sheikh Mohammad Khan Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WAR -YAM SINGH V. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
H. G. HENSON V. M. SULTAN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,LAKHIMPUR [REFERRED TO]
DINABANDHU SAHU VS. JADUMONI MANGARAJ [REFERRED TO]
T C BASAPPA VS. T NAGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMI NARAIN TEWARI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
K RAMASWAMY DOSS VS. A RAMA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN AMRITLAL VARME VS. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC MANAGER [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM RAMCHARAN VS. M N NAGRASHNA [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA JAIN AIRWAYS LTD. VS. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. P R DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-1993-12-33] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

PARANJPE,J. - (1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226, or in the -alternative under Article 227 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27 July 1962 passed by the respondent No. 2 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing; respondent No. 2 to decide the question of limitation as a preliminary issue.
(2.)THE respondent No. 2 was employed as a Manager of the Tumsar Branch of M/s, Kaji Latif Gani, Bidi Manufacturers, Nagpur, for several years. He claimed that his services were wrongfully terminated on 30th July 1962 by the then, General Manager. The respondent No. 1. thereafter filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of the respondent No. 2 for recovery of the following amounts:
(1) Over time wages for the periodJuly 1958 to June 1961 ...... Rs. 6851.25 nP.(2) Travelling allowance for theperiod July 1958 to June 1961 .....Rs. 1270.00(3) Leave in lieu with wages for theperiod 1948 to 1961 .....Rs. 1300.00(4) Bonus for the period 1948to 1961 .....Rs. 5800.00Total Rs. 15221.25 nP.

The respondent No. 1 claimed in his petition that as per contract of service and prevailing practice these amounts were payable whenever demanded by the applicant. The applicant made A demand of the claim on 15th January 1952 and that claim has been refused by the non -applicant and therefore he was compelled to file the present petition. This petition was filed on 29th January 1962.

(3.)THE petition by itself did not explain how the claim beyond one year could be included in it. On the 26th February 1962 the respondent 'No. 1 filed his application, which would be found at page 20 of the paper book, for condonation of the delay. The grounds of condonation were stated in the following terms:
'(i) That, in the application dated 29 -1 -1961 the applicant has included the claim for a period of above one year and the reason for it is that, he has been demanding this continuously from the opposite parties and the opposite parties always stated that, they will pay it. Moreover the accounts are never settled and they are continuous, the cause of action arose when the applicant made a demand on 15 -1 -62. The reply is sent on 3 -2 -62 refusing the claim and thus the claims became payable on 3 -2 -62 the date of refusal and as such the claims are within limitation. There is thus sufficient cause for condonation. (2) However, the applicant is making this application for condonation of delay by way of abundant precaution.....'



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