S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a bunch of 17 revision petitions directed against the order dated March 31, 1980, passed by the District Judge, Bikaner whereby he has dismissed the appeals which were filed under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act (No. IV of 1936) (for short 'the Act' herein) holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear them. As all these revision petitions raise identical questions, I consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order.
(2.) IT is not necessary to recount the facts giving rise to each of the revision petitions as the difference in facts in each of the revision petition is not material for their disposal. I will notice the facts giving rise to S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 234 of 1980 : The Divisional Personnel Officer (N. R.) Bikaner vs. Mohanlal and others. Non petitioner No. 1 Mohanlal submitted an application under section 15 (2) of the Act before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as the Authority') claiming illegal deduction of wages and compensation and Advocate's Fee. The claim was contested by the non applicants, i. e. , the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2. The Authority, by its order dated October 28, 1978, partly allowed the claim of the applicant-non-petitioner No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 17 000/- only. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Bikaner under section 17 of the Act. At the time of she hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by non-petitioner No. 1 that since the Court of District Judge, Churu has been created and the tentorial jurisdiction of the Court at Bikaner has been limited to the revenue district of Bikaner only from May 1, 1977 and the applicant in the application under Sec. 15 (2) of the Act was working at Ratangarh/loharu in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge Churu, the appeal can only be entertained by the District Judge, Churu and as the appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner, he has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear it. The learned District Judge, Bikaner, by his order dated March 31, 1980, up held the objection raised in regard to the question of jurisdiction and held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal that was filed under Sec. 17 of the Act. In view of the conclusion, to which he arrived at the learned District Judge, Bikaner, by the impugned order dated March 31, 1980, dismissed the appeal. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid appellate-order the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Learned counsel for the parties stated that as the only question involved in these revision petitions is of jurisdiction, record is not necessary. They submitted that the revision petitions may be heard and finally disposed of. I have heard Mr. A. K. Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. B. L. Purohit for non-petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the raised the following two contentions before me : (1) that the learned District Judge, Bikaner has jurisdiction to hear the appeals filed under Sec. 17 of the Act and as he has held that he has no jurisdiction to hear them, he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. (2) that even as per the finding of the learned District Judge, when he held that the appeals filed under Sec. 17 of the Act cannot be heard by him, for, he has no jurisdiction to hear them, he has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law when he ordered that the appeals filed under Sec. 17 be dismissed as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only direction which the learned District Judge in the circumstances of the case could make was that as he has no jurisdiction to hear the appeals, they should be returned for presentation to the proper court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for non-petitioner No. 1 has supported the impugned orders in each of the revision petitions and urged that there is no vested right in so far as the forum of appeal is concerned and as at the time of the filing of the appeals under Sec. 17 of the Act, the Court of District Judge, Churu was in existence, the appeals ought to have been filed in that court. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The first question that crops up for my consideration is whether the District Judge, Bikaner has jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the appeals on the date (s) when they were lodged under Sec. 17 of the Act which were directed against the order and direction, passed by the Authority under Sec. 15 (3) of the Act. ;