JUDGEMENT
VINEET KOTHARI, J. -
(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated November 24, 1999 of learned Addl. District Judge, Churu rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of petitioner Megha Ram.
(2.) The matter pertains to Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 22 of which reads as under:
Bar of suits: - No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages in so far as the sum so (a) forms the subject of an application under Section 15 which has been presented by the plaintiff and which is pending before the authority appointed under that Section or of an appeal under Section 17; or (b) has formed the subject of a direction under Section 15 in favour of the plaintiff; or (c) has been adjudged, in any proceeding under Section 15, not to be owed to the plaintiff; or (d) could have been recovered by an application under Section 15.
(3.) In view of the said bar of suits for recovery of wages under the said law, obviously the suit for declaration of order dated August 20, 1996 of Payment of Wages Authority, Churu in Application No. 33/96 directing payment of wages to the defendant-Megha Ram, filed by the Panchayat Samiti, Churu was not maintainable and, therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as under: Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.