- (1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 2512 of 1989, as the question involved is common in both cases.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to Civil Revision Petition No. 224 of 1990 are that Shri K. L. Garg, petitioner, filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called "the Act"), for the recovery of Rs. 1,350 as an ex gratia in lieu of bonus for the year 1983 along with interest for four years at the rate of 18 per cent per annum amounting to Rs. 1,267 -total Rs. 2,617. He also claimed compensation at ten times the wages deducted, amounting to Rs. 26, 170. However, the said application was contested inter alia, on the ground that the Act is not applicable to the respondent-insurance company; the nature of the claim did not fall under Section 15 (2) of the Act; the applicant having been dismissed from service was not entitled to come to the court by virtue of Section 16 of the Act and that the Court bad no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Abohar, exercising the powers of the authority under the Act, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to the relief prayed for, the application was maintainable and that the Court had jurisdiction to decide the same. Ultimately, he directed the payment of Rs. 16,667 to the petitioner. An appeal was filed on behalf of the New India Assurance Co. against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. There, the sole argument raised was that the authority under the Act did not possess jurisdiction to hear an application made against an insurance company by one of its employees because the provisions of the Act do not extend to insurance companies. This argument found favour with the learned Additional District Judge as it was found that the workman had failed to show as to how the provisons of the Act were applicable to his case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the New India Assurance Co. was an "industry" and, therefore, the Act was applicable to it. Reference was made to Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act to contend that this Act applies to the persons employed in any industrial or other establishment specified in Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of section. Reference was also made to the definition of "industry or other establishment" as contained therein. According to learned counsel, an insurance company was an "industry" and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were applicable to the petitioner. Reference in this behalf was made to S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, (1983-II-LLJ 429 ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the definition of "industrial or other establishment", in the Act, does not include the insurance companies and, therefore, the Act, as such, was not applicable to them. Learned counsel further submitted that in the said definition, in Clause (h), it has been provided that an industrial or other establishment shall mean any other establishment or class of establishments which the Central Government or the State Government may, having regard to the nature thereof, the need for protection of persons employed therein and other relevant circumstances, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, but no such notification has been issued by either the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf.;