- (1.) These tow applications, which have been heard together, raise the question of the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under The Payment of Wages Act.
(2.) The respondents in these two application were, admittedly, workmen under the present petitioners. There was a dispute, pending before an Industrial Tribunal between the petitioners and their workmen, relating to the wage structure, payment of bonus etc. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the workman appear to have staged a stay-in-strike on 24th September, 1963, and confined the managerial staff till late hours and indulged in some in disciplined behaviour. The petitioners, therefore, took disciplinary action against some of the workman, viz., the respondents and the matter was enquired into and they were dismissed by an order, dated 2nd December, 1963. The company also informed the respondents that they were making an application to the 7th Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal in accordance with the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and also offered to them one month's wages, as required by the statute.
(3.) Such an application was actually made before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal, praying for permission to withdraw the said application for some technical reasons without prejudice That application was opposed by the respondents. The learned Tribunal allowed the petitioners to withdraw the application, noting, however, that the result of the withdrawal will be that there will be no approval for the dismissal. This order was passed on 21st October, 1965. On the same date, some of the respondents wrote to the petitioners, praying for permission to resume their duties with immediate effect, as, in their view, there was no approval with regard to their dismissal, and, as such, they were to be deemed to be in lawful employment. The petitioners refused to allow them to resume their duties, holding that the order of dismissal stood. Thereafter, the respondents applied to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, hereinafter referred to as the Authority, for delayed wages and bonus. They claimed wages for the period from September 1, 1963, to November 30, 1965, as also bonus. The petitioners appeared therein and disputed the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the application. This contention, however, was overruled by the Authority and it held that the workmen were not entitled to any bonus but were entitled to back wages from September 1, 1963, to October 21, 1965, and allowed the claim to that extent. Both the parties appealed to the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, who was the appellate authority under the Act. The present respondents appeal was registered as Appeal No. 28 of 1967 and they claimed that the Authority erred in not allowing their claim for bonus an also back wages upto November 30, 1965. The present petitioners appeal was registered as Appeal No. 30 of 1967 and their contention was that the Authority concerned erred in finding that the order of dismissal of the employees was ineffective and inoperative and further, that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the present respondents.;