P.K. Jain, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated March 22, 1980 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the review petition was allowed by Respondent No. 1.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called as the Act) before the prescribed authority. The learned prescribed authority allowed the claim of Respondent No. 2 to the extent of Rs. 2108.58 as wages and Rs. 250/- as compensation. Respondent No. 2 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 802 of 1977 which was heard and dismissed by the First Addl. District Judge, Allahabad vide judgment and order dated February 2, 1978 and the order of the prescribed authority was affirmed, Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. for reviewing the order so far as it related to the award of compensation. The learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad who heard the review application allowed the same vide judgment and order dated March 22, 1980 and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 1250/-. The order passed on review application is assailed mainly on the grounds that while exercising power under Section 17 of the Act the appellate Court did not act as a Civil Court and there being no other provisions in the Payment of Wages Act conferring powers of review upon the appellate authority the impugned order was without jurisdiction and that the reviewing authority has overstepped its jurisdiction by reassessing the evidence and by forming a different opinion than the one formed by his predecessor. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the appellate powers nave been conferred upon Distt. Judge who hears the appeal in the capacity as District Judge and not as persona designata. Therefore, the District Judge as an Appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure has power to review its decision. It is further contended that the appellate Court while disposing of the appeal vide judgment and order, dated February 2, 1978 tailed to consider some evidence which was an error of application on the face of record and, therefore, the review application was rightly entertained by the Successor and was rightly allowed by the impugned judgment and order.;