- (1.) THESE are three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, which may conveniently be disposed of by the same judgment, because the points that arise in them are common and relate to the same institution namely, the Vishwamitra Karyalaya (Press ).
(2.) THE petitioner in these petitions is the Vishwamitra Karyalaya (Press), Mahatma Gandhi Road, kanpur. The press publishes a Hindi newspaper known as 'vishwamitra' at Kanpur. The press has been registered as a factory under the Factories Act and there is a licence for the premises no. 965 Mahatma Gandhi Road. The respondents 2 to 14 of petitions Nos. 970 and 971 of 1953, and 2 to 9 of petition No. 987 of 1953, are the employees or were the employees of this karyalaya. Some of them were sub-editors, same compositors and one was a Daftari. There were certain disputes between the Karyalaya and respondents 2 to 14 of petition No. 970 of 1953, which were referred for adjudication to some Industrial Tribunal, and the matter went up to the Supreme court. After the decision by the Supreme Court, there were certain complaints that the management had not paid the wages of the respondents within the period provided by law, and applications were filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories to the Magistrate, who had been authorised under section 15, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in the payment of wages. Certain preliminary objections were taken to the applicants, and after they had been disposed of, the learned Magistrate framed issues and went into the matter. After discussing the facts and law of the points raised before him, he came to the conclusion that the respondents had not been paid their wages within the period provided by Section 5, Payment of Wages Act. A number of legal points were also raised before him, but he decided all of them against the petitioner and directed payment of wages, as claimed by the Chief Inspector. The order of the Magistrate is dated 22-10-1953 and petitions Nos. 970 and 971 of 1953 were filed in this Court on 12-11-1953 and petition No. 987 of 1953 on 23-11-1953. The prayers contained in these petitions are that the order passed by the Magistrate directing the payment of wages be quashed, and that writs of mandamus be issued directing the respondent 1 not to recover from the petitioner the amount awarded under the order aforesaid.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of points in support of the petitions, and the learned counsel for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the petitions, I proceed to decide first the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The objection is to the effect that appeals lay against the impugned orders under section 17, Payment of Wages Act, and the petitioner having omitted to file these appeals, he has disentitled himself to present these petitions. Sub-section (3) of Section 15, Payment of Wages Act says that where an application under sub-section (2) by the Inspector is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer and, after such enquiry as may be necessary, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or may order the payment of the delayed wages together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding a certain figure. Section 17 says that an appeal against a direction under Sub-section (3) of Section 15 may be preferred within 30 days of the date on which the direction was made before the District Court, if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeds Rs. 300/ -. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that applications were made under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the said Act by the Chief Inspector of Factories, that they were entertained by the Magistrate appointed to deal with them and in the end the learned Magistrate directed the payment of daily wages to the workers. The order was fully covered by Sub-section (3) of Section 15 and an appeal clearly lay under Section 17 to the District court.;