Rajadhyaksha, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision application raises an important question of jurisdiction of this Court to revise under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a decision of the "authority" under the Payment of Wages Act. The applicant is a manager of the Spring Mills, Limited, and as such responsible for the payment of wages to the employees of his Mills. In the year 1945 the Mills used to work overtime, and certain of its employees did overtime for which they were paid by the applicant the amount of remuneration according to Section 47 of the Factories Act, which provides that where a worker in any factory works for more than 60 hours in a week or where a worker in a factory other than a seasonal factory works for more than 10 hours in a day, he shall be entitled in respect of the overtime worked to pay at the rate of 1 1/2 times the ordinary rates of pay. By Sub-section (2) of that section it is further provided that where a worker in a factory other than a seasonal factory works for more hours in a week than are permitted under Section 34, he shall be entitled in respect of the overtime work, excluding any overtime in respect of which he is entitled to extra pay under Sub-section (1), to pay at the rate of 1 1/2 times his ordinary rate of pay. The present opponent No.1, who is a Secretary of the Rashtriya Gimi Kamgar Sangh, and a person authorised to act under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, made an application in the Court of the Authority appointed under Section 15 of that Act for the city of Bombay (Application No.15 of 1946), on behalf of about 28 employees in the Mills. In this application it was alleged that the present applicant illegally deducted dearness allowance in computing the overtime allowance to be paid to such employees for the periods mentioned, namely from August 1, 1945, to November 30, 1945. Notices were issued to the applicant calling upon him to appear at the hearing before the said Authority on a day fixed in the notice. The matter came up for hearing before the Authority and by its order dated July 9, 1945, the Authority decided against the applicant and directed him to pay the amount of Rs. 218-9-4 to the said employees on the ground that in computing the remuneration for the overtime worked by the employees between August 1945 and November 1945 the applicant had not taken into consideration and given to such employees dearness allowance at the appropriate rate or at any rate whatever. It is against that order of the Authority that the present application has been filed in revision.
(2.) AFTER the present application was filed, the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act was joined as opponent No.2. In the prayer clause a writ of certiorari was asked for against the second opponent calling upon it to send to this Court the records of the said case for the purpose of inquiring into the legality of the order passed by it. When the application came up for hearing, it was realised that an application for a writ of certiorari must, in view of the recent Privy Council decision, lie on the Original Side of this Court. Sir Jamshedji Kanga, therefore, submitted that the name of the second opponent against whom a writ of certiorari was asked for may be deleted and that the present applicant was willing to pay its costs. We, therefore, direct that the name of opponent No.2 may be removed, and the application against it for a writ of certiorari stand dismissed with costs. The present application, therefore, proceeds only as against opponent No.1 and this Court is called upon in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Mr. Shantilal Shah on behalf of opponent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection that no revision is competent because the decision of the Authority making-that order is not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) IN considering this question, whether the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act is a Court subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, it is necessary to consider some of the important provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. It is enacted by Section 15 (1) of the Act that "the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specific area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area. "sub-section (3) of Section 15 says that "when any application has been made by any person that an illegal deduction has been made by the employer from his wages, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer and after such further inquiry (if any) as may be necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person is liable under the Act, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit. " Sub-section (4) of the same section lays down that "if the Authority hearing an application is satisfied that the application was malicious or vexatious, the Authority may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be paid to the employer. Sub-section (5) is to the effect that any amount directed to be paid under Section 15 may be recovered (a) if the Authority is a Magistrate, by the Authority as if it were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate, (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. By Section 17 the employer has been given a right of appeal if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation by him exceeds Its. 300. The employee, however, has been given a right of appeal to the District Court if the total amount of wages claimed to have been withheld from him exceeds Rs. 5 0.Sub-section (2) of Section 17 says that "save as provided above, any direction made by the Authority shall be final. " Section 18 lays down that every Authority shall have the powers of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, and every such Authority shall be deemed to be a civil Court for all purposes of Section 195 and of Ch. XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1808.;