MANAGEMENT PLY BOARD Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER THE WAGES ACT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Management Ply Board
Authority Under The Wages Act
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision arises out of the proceedings for recovery of amount awarded under the payment, of wages Act, 1936 shortly Ëœthe Act.
Section 15 of the Act empowers the competent authority called the
Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to recover the arrears of wages
due to the employee from the employer. Sub -section 5 of the said section
reads as under: -
5 Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered.
a If the authority is a Magistrate by the authority as if it
were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate, and
b If the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate to
whom the authority makes application in this behalf, as if it were a fine
imposed by such Magistrate."
(2.) IN the present case the competent authority applied to the C. J. M. Srinagar for recovery of the amount found due by it to the employee
from the employer. The C. J. M. Srinagar transferred the application for
disposal to City Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. The City
Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate Srinagar took necessary steps to effect the
The petitioners grievance is that the order of the transfer of the
CJM was incompetent and consequently the subsequent proceedings are
without jurisdiction. In this he has relied upon cl. b of sub. Section
5 reproduced above. A bare perusal of the said clause would, however, clearly show that the magistrate to whom the application is made does not
become a persona designate. If that were so, then, perhaps it could not
be possible for him to delegate the power to any other, person even if
such person were a magistrate otherwise competent to effect the recovery
as if the amount were imposed by way of a fine. The expression "any
magistrate" would include any magistrate of competent jurisdiction and
where there are more than one magistrates competent to affect the
recovery then such magistrate would imply the principal magistrate of the
area and, if that be so, then, as a corollary it follows that he can
effect the recovery himself or order the same to be done by some other
magistrate subordinate to him. His power of transfer in my opinion, is
implied by the provisions itself. Any other interpretation would lead to
many anomalies and absurdities. Take for example, the district of
Srinagar. There are so many judicial magistrate acting in this district,
if it were held that the choice exclusively lies with the competent
authority, then he might choose a magistrate at Ganderbal for effecting
the recovery, which can be conveniently effected by a magistrate at
Srinagar, regard being had that the person from whom the recovery is
sought to be effected belongs to city of Srinagar. The hardship that it
would work on the persons against whom the recovery is sought to be
effected is obvious, and hardly needs any explanation. In this view, if
the competent authority has applied for the recovery to the CJM, Srinagar
the latter was competent either to effect the recovery himself or to
transfer the same to any other magistrate subordinate to him and, if that
be so, proceeding for the recovery taken by the City Munsiff, Judl
Magistrate, Srinagar, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
(3.) THE City Munsiff, Judl. Magistrate Srinagar, was not, however, correct in arrogating the power to himself by contending that the order
of the transfer made by the CJM, Srinagar, was covered by Section 192 Cr.
P. C. to that extent his view is not sustainable, but that would not
affect the validity of the proceedings taken by him. Which, as pointed
out above, are fully justified by sub section 5 of Section 15 of the
Act. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order
under revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.