Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises interesting questions of law to appreciate which it is necessary to refer to the facts leading to these proceedings.
(2.) THE Petitioner, Om Parkash Arora is employed as Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Amritsar and is drawing Rs. 565 p.m. He moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, under Sections 16 and 18 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, for a direction to the Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India and its Senior Branch Manager Shri Jaswant Singh to pay Rs. 3,892.16 on account of wages and compensation due to him for the period between 26th August, 1968 and 19th September, 1968. He alleged that his salary for the period stated above had been withheld by his employer without justifiable cause and because of oblique motive and in contravention of Section 16 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In resisting the claim, the Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India objected that the proceedings were barred under Section 47, of the Life Insurance Corporation Act; that the Applicant was not an "employee" within the meaning assigned to that term by Section 2(vi), of that Act and as such the application was not competent. It was further pleaded that the Branch office of the Life Insurance Corporation situate in Gandhi Nagar Amritsar was not a commercial establishment to which the provisions of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act could apply and that Shri Jaswant Singh Senior Manager of that Branch (Respondent 1), Could not be personally sued. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, found that the Branch office concerned of the Life Insurance Corporation was a commercial establishment and the Petitioner Om Prakash was an employee to whom the Act was applicable. He, however, threw out the Petitioner's application, without trying it on merits, being of the opinion that the claim made by him "would not amount to wages as envisaged by the provisions of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act."
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by this order of 10th January, 1969, the Petitioner Om Parkash Arora has approached this Court under Article 227, of the Constitution complaining that the learned Magistrate had refused to exercise jurisdiction on wrong premises and prays that his order be set aside and he be directed to deal with the Petitioner's claim on merits. Besides defending the impugned order of the Magistrate dated 10th January, 1969, Mr. Rajinder Sachar appearing for the Respondents has raised two preliminary objections. He contends: (1) That since the order was passed by a Magistrate, the proper course for the Petitioner was to go up in revision against that order to the Court of Session under Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure and if he failed to have recourse to that remedy this Court should refuse to interfere under Article 227, of the Constitution; (2) That it is not a fit case for exercise of the power under Article 227, of the Constitution, as at best what can be said is that the Magistrate had committed an error of law; and (3) That the Petitioner had an alternative remedy available to approach the departmental authorities under the Life Insurance Corporation Regulations 1956.;