SITARAM RAMCHARAN Vs. M N NAGRASHNA
LAWS(BOM)-1954-6-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 22,1954

SITARAM RAMCHARAN Appellant
VERSUS
M.N.NAGRASHNA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SITARAM PARAJI V. NIMBA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA V. CHATHAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
HYMAN V. ROSE,1912 AC 623 [REFERRED TO]
DADABHAI V. MANEKSHA [REFERRED TO]
ROLES V. PASCALL AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ INDAR SINGH V. KANSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
SPRING MILLS LTD. V. G.D. AMBEKAR [REFERRED TO]
HOGAN V. GAFUR RAMZAN [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI AND CO. V. YESHWANT TUKARAM [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOHAN GHOSH V. SURAPATI BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO LOKMAN LODHI VS. NARMADABAI [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN AMRITLAL VARME VS. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC MANAGER [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VADILAL DIPCHAND VS. SHIVLAL BHOGILAL [LAWS(GJH)-1968-2-9] [REFERRED]
SUJANA RAM VS. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT [LAWS(ALL)-1994-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
POTTA SITHARAMIAH VS. V VIRRAJU [LAWS(APH)-1958-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
POKARMAL GURDAYAL VS. SAGARMAL BENGANI [LAWS(CAL)-1973-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. BASHI RAM GOBIND SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1961-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT RAM VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1956-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI LATIF GANI NAGPUR VS. ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHAN [LAWS(BOM)-1962-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
LOONA RAM VS. AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER S 151 PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT [LAWS(RAJ)-1961-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHANAND CHAUDHARY VS. BINDESHWARI THAKUR [LAWS(PAT)-1959-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER NORTHERN RAILWAY JODHPUR VS. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL JABALPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1965-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED PROVINCES COMMERCIAL VS. MISHRA (K N [LAWS(PAT)-1961-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
IMPERIAL TOBACCO CO OF INDIA LTD VS. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMR [LAWS(PAT)-1965-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
HAJARI RAM VS. MANTRI KHADI MANDIR BIKANER [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
Har Chand VS. State of Rajasthan [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
KOKARMAL GURUDAYAL VS. SAGARMAL BENGANI [LAWS(CAL)-1972-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN MOVIE VS. TEWARI (S B [LAWS(PAT)-1965-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
PAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR M.B. GOVERNMENT AND ANR. VS. BRAMHODATTA BAGRODIA [LAWS(MPH)-1955-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANWARUL HAQ VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1970-11-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THESE two petitions are on behalf of the employees of the Watch and Ward Department, in one case of the Rohit Mills, Ahmedabad, and in the other case of the Rajnagar Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. , Ltd, Ahmedabad. These employees made an application on 23-9-1953, to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages which according to them had been delayed; and in the case of the Rohit Mills the claim was with regard to wages from 1-1-1951, to 31-12-1952, and with regard to the other mill the claim was with regard to wages from 1-1-1951, to 30-6-1953; The basis of the claim was that the lights of these employees were governed by the Factories Act and under the provisions of the Factories Act, inasmuch as they had worked more than eight hours a day, they were entitled to overtime due. Admittedly, the claim was made in respect of most of the wages six months beyond their becoming due, and as under Section 15 (2), Payment of Wages Act, a claim made after six months is barred, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to satisfy the Authority that they had sufficient cause for not making the claim within time, The Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to show sufficient cause, and therefore in the case of the Rohit Mills he dismissed the application of the petitioners and in the case of the other mill he dismissed the bulk of the claim made by the employees. It is against this decision of the Authority that the petitioners have come to this Court under Arts. 226 and 227.
(2.)IN the first place, a preliminary objection is taken that the petitioners should have preferred an appeal as provided by the Act and should not have come under Arts. 226 and 227 to this Court. In our opinion there is no substance in that contention. As has been pointed out in -- "prem Narayan v. D. T. M. Bhusawal', AIR 1954 Bom 78 (A), the scheme of the Payment of Wages Act is that an application for payment of wages is only entertained under Sub-section (3) of Section 15, Payment of Wages Act, after it has been admitted on sufficient cause being shown if it is presented after the period of limitation laid down in Sub-section (2 ). The section relating to appeals, viz. Section 17, only makes a direction under Sub-section (3) given by the Authority appealable. Now, a direction under Sub-section (3) would be a direction on merits after the application was entertained, but in this case the direction given by the Authority is not on merits and not falling under Sub-section (3), but it is a decision under Sub-section (2) holding that the applicants had failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the application within time. Such an order is not made appealable under Section 17. Therefore, the only remedy that the petitioners had to challenge the decision of the Authority was by coming to this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioners could not also have come to this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C. , because a Division Bench of this Court in--'spring Mills, Ltd. v. G. D. Ambekar', AIR 1949 Bom 188 (B) has held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not a Court subordinate to this Court and therefore this Court has no revisional powers over the Authority under Section 115, Civil P. C.
(3.)COMING to the merits of the matter, it appears that Section 70, Shops and Establishments Act, which was passed in 1948 provided: "nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to any person employed in or within the precincts of a factory and the provisions of the Factories Act shall, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, apply to such persons. " now, under the Factories Act the petitioners would not have satisfied the definition of "worker", but Section 70, Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, extended the operation of the Factories Act and made the Factories Act applicable to persons working in the precincts of a factory, and as admittedly the petitioners worked within the precincts of the two mills, by reason of the extension of the Factories Act the provisions of the Factories Act became applicable to them. This had some very important consequences as far as the petitioners were concerned, because when we turn to the Factories Act we find that under Section 51 "no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than 48 hours in any week", and under Section 54 "no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than nine hours in any day", and Section 50 provides for extra wages for overtime and it provides:
"where a worker works in a factory for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall, in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. "
Inasmuch as according to the petitioners they had been working nine hours a day and 54 hours a week, they became entitled to wages of overtime, and this is the claim they made in the application which was dismissed by the Authority.


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