- (1.) In these 37. revisions, common questions of law and fact arise and it is convenient to dispose them of by one common judgment.
(2.) On January 1, 1956, the Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited, Meerut, the applicant before us, suspended 63 of its workmen on the charge of their indulging in "go slow." On January 9, 1956, the applicant held an inquiry and decided to dismiss all these workmen. As some industrial dispute was pending adjudication at that time between the applicant and its workmen, the appli- cant applied to the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut, for permission to dismiss the workmen. By order dated May 9, 1956, the Additional Regional Con- ciliation Officer granted permission in res- pect of 11 workmen but refused permission in respect of the remaining workmen. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed as incompetent on July 9, 1956. Thereafter the applicant obtained on September 10, 1956, from the Supreme Court of India special leave to appeal against the orders of the Regional Conciliation Officer and of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. By the order granting special leave, the Supreme Court also granted stay in the following terms : "That, subject to the condition that the petitioner-appellant herein pays to the 51 workers (respondents herein) ordered to be reinstated half of their wages from the date of this order or from such date on which they are expected to rejoin their duties, the implementation of the order dated 9-5-56 of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut in P. D. Case No. 15 of 1956 be and the same is hereby stayed pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of the appeals by Special Leave above mentioned." The appeal was finally dismissed as incompetent by the Supreme Court on September 25, 1962. Thereafter the workmen, who are respondents in these revisions, applied to the applicant for reinstatement and payment of back wages but, by letters dated October, 3, 1962 and October 22, 1962, the applicant requested them to give it some time to consider over the matter. On October 12, 1962, the applicant filed a writ petition, being C. M. Writ Petition No. 3047 of 1962 before this Court, challenging the orders of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer and of the Labour Appellate Tribunal refusing to grant permission for the dismissal of the workmen. The writ petition was admitted on October 12, 1962. On November 1, 1962, this Court, after hearing both parties, passed the following order : "Until further orders, the respondents are restrained from enforcing the order of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut, dated May 9, 1956, provided the petitioner pays to the respondents-workmen half of the monthly wages from this month onwards by the 15th of every month. If half of the wages of the workmen for two consecutive months are not paid, the interim order shall stand automatically discharged." The writ petition was dismissed on December 18, 1962, on the ground of laches. Thereafter the workmen again demanded reinstatement and payment of back wages from the applicant but, by letter dated December 24, 1962, the applicant requested for some time to consider the matter. On January 14, 1963, the applicant dismissed all the workmen and refused either to reinstate them or to pay them their back wages. In the first and second weeks of June, 1963, 38 workmen filed applications under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, claiming wages for the period from January 1, 1956 to January 14 1963. The applicant raised an objection that all these applications were time-barred. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut, who is the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, held that the applications were time- barred, except for the period comprising Dec. 1962 and Jan. 1 to 14, 1963. He accordingly rejected all the applications in respect of the claims for the period from January 1,1956 upto November 30, 1962, and issued notices to the applicant in respect of the remaining period only. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the 38 employees filed appeals before the appellate authority. The IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut, who heard the appeals, allowed all the 38 appeals by his order dated August 3, 1985, condoning the delay in filing the claim petitions, and sent the cases back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding them on merits. Against the order of the IInd Additional District Judge, the appellant filed 38 revisions in this Court. One of the revisions, namely, Civil Revision No. 1540 of 1965 (Jaswant Sugar Mills, Limited, Meerut v. Bed Ram) came up for hearing before Kirty, J. and he, by his order dated May 10, 1968, dismissed the revision. It was not brought to his notice that the present 37 revisions, which were connected with that revision, were also pending disposal. These 37. revisions then came up for hearing before Verma, J. He was inclined to disagree with the view taken by Kirty, J. but, feeling that it would not be proper for a Single Judge to take a contrary view on the same set of facts and on the same questions of law, he has referred these revisions for decision to a larger Bench. That is how these 37 revisions have come up before us for hearing.
(3.) Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act provides for the appointment of an authority to hear and decide claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages. Sub-section (2), which is material, is in these words : "15 (2). Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-sec. (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3) : Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be : Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period." It appears from this that the claim petition may be made in respect of deduction from wages or for delay in payment of wages and should be filed within six months of the date of the deduction or from the date on which the payment of wages was due. The second proviso permits the authority to accept an application even after the expiry of six months if there is sufficient cause for the delay.;