SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated April 3, 1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner in Appeal No. 90/1995 by which he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioners and modified the order dated May 6, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, Bikaner (for short 'the Authority') in the manner that he maintained that portion of the order dated May 6, 1995 granting wages of Rs.99,125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker but set aside that portion of the order dated May 6, 1995 granting compensation of Rs.99,125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: The respondent No. 1, Bhawani Shanker was employee of the petitioners and his services were terminated by the petitioners vide order dated December 31, 1988 and thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed claim before the Labour Court, Bikaner and the Labour Court, Bikaner through judgment and award dated October 26, 1993 allowed the claim of the respondent No. 1 and set aside the termination order dated December 31, 1988 and ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 in service with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, no doubt the respondent No. 1 was taken back in service, but benefits which were to be given to him were not paid by the petitioners and therefore, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1936") before the respondent No. 2 Authority claiming Rs.99,125/- as wages for the period from January 1, 1989 to May 31, 1994 and he also claimed compensation of Rs. 9,91,250/- as he was not paid the amount in time. Notices of that application filed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936 were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners filed their reply stating that since the judgment and award were passed by the Labour Court, therefore, respondent No. 2 Authority had no jurisdiction to grant relief as sought for by the respondent No. 1 and further, the claim as put forward by the respondent No. 1 was not covered by the definition of "wages" as defined in Section 2(vi) of the Act of 1936. Hence, it was prayed that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 be rejected. After hearing the parties, the learned Authority (respondent No. 2) through order dated May 6, 1995 rejected the contentions of the petitioners and granted Rs.99,125/- as wages and Rs.99,125/- as compensation total Rs. 1,98,250/- to the respondent No. 1 holding inter alia: (i) That the claim as put forward by the respondent No. 1 was covered by the definition of wages as defined in Section 2(vi) of the Act of 1936 and further, the Authority had jurisdiction to decide such matter and thus, the plea that the amount, which was claimed by the respondent No. 1, should have been agitated before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947") was rejected. (ii) That on point whether the claim of the respondent No. 1 comes within the purview of deducted wages or delayed wages, the learned Authority came to the conclusion that it was a case of illegal deducted wages and not delayed wages and thus, granted Rs.99,125/- as wages and Rs.99,125/- as compensation total Rs. 1,98,2507- to the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved from the said order dated May 6, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 Authority, the petitioners preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Bikaner and the learned District Judge, Bikaner through impugned judgment dated April 3, 1996 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners and modified the order dated May 6, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 Authority in the manner that he maintained that portion of the order dated May 6, 1995 granting wages of Rs.99,125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker, but set aside that portion of the order dated May 6, 1995 granting compensation of Rs. 99,125/- to respondent No. 1 Bhawani Shanker. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated April 3, 1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.
(3.) In this revision petition, two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners: (i) That the respondent No. 1 should have taken recourse under the provisions of the Act of 1947 because his claim was based on the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to pass appropriate order under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 and the same was not available under the provisions of the Act of 1937. (ii) That furthermore, computation of the amount was not the function of the Authority and from this point of view also, the impugned judgment and order passed by both Courts below suffer from basic infirmity and illegality and thus, liable to be quashed and set aside.;