- (1.) The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether workmen are entitled to apply to the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. 4 of 1936) (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the recovery of the amount of gratuity due to them under an award passed between them and their employer. This question has been answered by the Bombay High Court in the negative and the appellants, Purshotam. H. Jadye and 34 others, who have come to this Court with a certificate granted by the said High Court, contended that the view taken by the High Court is not justified on a fair and reasonable construction of S. 2 (vi) (d) of the act. Respondent No. 1 is Mr. V. B. Potdar, the Authority appointed under the Act, whereas respondent No. 2, the Bombay Chronicle Co. Private Ltd., is the employer of the appellants.
(2.) Respondent No. 2, a company having its registered office at Red House, Horniman Circle, Fort, Bombay, were the printers and publishers of the 'Bombay Chronicle', an English Daily, which used to be published in Bombay until the 5th April 1959. On that day, the paper discontinued its publication. The appellants are the former employees of respondent No. 2. In a reference made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, under the Industrial Disputes Act, an award was pronounced by the said Tribunal on the 28th September 1949, framing a scheme of gratuity payable to the appellants. This award directed respondent No. 2 to pay gratuity to the appellants on terms and conditions prescribed by it. It appears that respondent No. 2 terminated this award on the 29th February 1952. After the 'Bombay Chronicle' ceased publication, the appellants moved respondent No. 1 under the Act by several applications for payment of the gratuity due to them. These applications were made in July and August 1959.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection against the competence of the appellants' applications. It was urged on its behalf that the amounts claimed by the appellants were not wages within the meaning of S. 2 (vi) (d) of the Act and as such the applications were incompetent. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the contention raised by respondent No. 2, and has held that the applications made by the appellants were competent and he had jurisdiction to deal with them on the merits.;