A N KULKARNI Vs. POONA CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 10th of the October, 1973 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Poona, by which the said Authority refused to entertain an application preferred by the petitioner purportedly under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". The following facts which can be taken as established or admitted may now be narrated in order to understand and appreciate the points raised by this petition. The petitioner was a clerk working with the respondent which is the Poona Cantonment Board for nearly 16 years prior to 1971. Between 1st of March, 1971 and 3rd of May, 1971 he was on leave but was entitled to claim amount as leave wages. That amount ultimately turned out to be about Rs. 600. The petitioner filed two applications under the said Act before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Poona. Those applications were numbered as (MW) 1 and 2 of 1971 and they were for recovering wages which according to the petitioner were due for the period between 1st of March, 1971 and 3rd of May, 1971. The Authority returned those applications to the petitioner on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application, being Application No. 1008 of 1972, in the Central Labour Court at Bombay under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the amount for which he had originally filed an application under the Minimum Wages Act. That application - was made to the Central Labour Court because the respondent with whom the petitioner was working was an industry for which the appropriate Government was the Central Government and, therefore, the appropriate Labour Court for claims arising under the Industrial Disputes Act against the respondent would be the Central Government Labour Court. By an order dated 17th of November, 1971 the Central Government Labour Court decreed in full the amount which was claimed by the petitioner by way of wages for the period mentioned above.

(2.) Thereafter the petitioner preferred another application, being (MW) 2 of 1972 again - before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act Poona whose Court by this time was held to have jurisdiction to entertain the claim under the Minimum Wages Act even against the industry for which the appropriate Government was the Central Government. In this application, purported to have been preferred under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, no claim whatsoever was made for wages or for minimum wages that could be claimed under the Minimum Wages Act. In this application the only claim that was made was for compensation amounting to ten times the amount of wages which had been decreed in favour of the petitioner by the Central Labour Court by its order dated 17th of November, 1971. It was the contention of the petitioner that the respondent had illegally withheld the payment which was due to him S. 12(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. Though this amount had been ultimately made payable to him by an order of the Central Government Labour Court, he was entitled to compensation at the rate mentioned in sub-s. (3) of S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act.

(3.) The Authority hearing this application thought that it put forth a claim for leave wages which had not been paid to the petitioner. Noticing that the petitioner had not put forth any claim at any particular rate of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, the learned Authority unfortunately misdirected himself that it was for the recovery of wages which had not been paid and held that he could not entertain the application. In other words, the Authority thought that unless there was an application for wages at the rate fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, he could not entertain an application under S. 20(1) of the Act. With the view which he thus took, the learned Authority dismissed the application by his judgment and order dated 10th of October, 1973. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.