Harbans Singh, J. - (1.) THIS revision has arisen out of a dispute between a worker and his employer in the following circumstances.
(2.) Gian Chand petitioner admittedly was working as a weaver in the factory of the respondent on piecarated basis. He was, however, paid every month. On 19th January, 1961, Gian Chand was retrenched. The question of legality of this retrenchment was referred to the Labour Court. On 8th September. 1937, the Labour Court held the retrenchment to be illegal. Two directions were issued, first, that Gian Singh should be reinstated with all back wages and with continuity of service and, secondly, that the employer should pay all the back wages to the applicant -petitioner, i.e., average pay from 20th January, 1966, till the date of his reinstatement subject to deduction of wages already paid to the employee. Gian Chand was actually reinstated on 20th September, 1967. So far as the back wages are concerned, there was a dispute between the parties as to the actual amount due. On 19th April, 1968, Gian Chand filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment Wages Act, 19.6 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 3,265 -08 as wages for the period from 20th January, 1956, to 20th September, 19(7, asserting his average wages to be Rs. 175 per mensem. According to the employer the average monthly wages of the workman came to Rs. 70 -29 and after making deduction of the sum already paid, the employer offered to pay the balance which came to Rs. 802 82. The Authority under the Act relying on the two statements, Exhibits Rule 1 and Rule 2, filed by the employer giving the total amount of wages paid to the workman from time to time during the period of his employment from the year 1959, to 1965 and total number of working days of the workman during this period respectively, came to the conclusion that the average daily wages of the workman were Rs. 4 -36 and after calculating the number of days for which he was entitled to payment, arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,123 -3.2, as being payable for the period mentioned above. Deducting a sum of Rs. 24b 02, which had admittedly been paid to the workman the employer -respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,877.30 by way of unpaid wages and Rs. 10 by way of compensation. Incidentally before the Authority under the Act an objection was taken that under Section 15 of the Act the Authority concerned had no jurisdiction to go into the question of calculating the amount of wages due because there was a dispute about it. This contention, however, did not find favour with the Authority. In appeal, however, the Appellate Authority has accepted this contention and held that the Authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to go into this matter and, consequently, the appeal was accepted. Except for giving a direction to the payment of Rs. 802 -82, which was admitted as payable by the employer, the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the workmen. It was suggested that the workman can seek his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has come up in revision.
(3.) IT is now well settled that simply because there is some dispute about the terms of the contract between the employer and !he employee or there is a dispute about the interpretation of these terms would not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act under Section 15 to determine the disputed question regarding the terms applicable or the interpretation of those terms All matters which are incidental to the determination of the wages, which have been wrongly deducted, or the wages payment of which has been delayed, can be settled and decided by the Authority concerned. Reference in this respect may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ambica Mills Company Ltd, v. S.B. Bhatt, 1961 I L.L.J. 3 the relevant head note runs as follows: It was further contended that when the employee and the employer go before the payment of wages Authority with two different contracts, it has got no jurisdiction to decide which of the contracts held the field, which of them is subsisting and under which of them the employer is liable to pay wages to the applicant -employee. Negativing the said contention, held that in dealing with claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages the authority inevitably would have to consider questions incidental to the said matters. In determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to affect or impair the considering of questions as to what could be reasonably regarded as incidental questions. If a claim is made by an employee on the ground of alleged illegal deduction or alleged delay in payment of wages, several relevant facts would fall to be considered. Is the applicant an employee of the opponent? and that refers to the subsistence of the relation between the employer and the employee. If the said fact is admitted, then the next question would be: What are the terms of employment? Is there any contract of employment in writing or is the contract oral? If that is not a point of dispute between the parties, than it would be necessary to enquire what are the terms of the admitted contract. In some cases a question may arise whether the contract which was subsisting at one time had ceased to subsist and the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end at the relevant period. In regard to an illegal deduction a question may arise whether the lockout declared by the employer is legal or illegal. In regard to contracts of service sometimes parties may be at variance and may set up rival contracts, and in such a case it may be necessary to enquire which contract was in existence at the relevant time. Hence it would be inexpedient to lay down any hard and fast or general rule which would afford a determining test to demarcate the field of incidental facts which can be legitimately considered by the authority and those which cannot be so considered.";