S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS revision by the employee, has been preferred against tie order, dated December 6, 1973, passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur in an appeal, which was filed under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act (No. 4 of 1936)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are these : The petitioner was an employee of the nonpetitioner Up Bhokta Sahkari Bhandar, Ward No 25 ('the Bhandar' hereafter) on a salary of Rs. 100 per month He was not paid his salary for the period from September 1, 1%S to November 10, 1964 without any reason and was placed under suspension with effect from November 11, 1964 The case of the petitioner further is that since then, up to October 31, 1968, he was not paid any subsistence allowance or salary. The petitioner also stated that he was assured on a number of occasions that he would be paid the subsistence allowance or the salary, bat that was not done. In these circumstance, he filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Authority appointed under the Act at Jodbpuron November 7, 1968. He claimed wages for the period from September 1, IMS, to October 31, 1968 i.e. for 62 months @ 00/ -, amounting to Rs. 6200/ -. Be also claim d compensation. In para 4A of his application, the petitioner stated that he was in constant touch with the rton petitioner who asiswed early payment and, therefore, the delay in presenting the application may be condoned. The non petitioner submitted his written statement dated January 6, 1969 The application was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was n )t validly employed as an employee of the non petitioner, that the claim was barred by time and that 'he Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was also pleaded that one month after the suspension, the petitioner did not report himself of duty and engaged himself in service, and as such he was not entitled to any subsistence allowance with respect to the period of suspension. The following five issues were framed bf the Authority. 1. Whether the claim beirg time barred is not maintainable? 2. Whether the claim cannot be heard under the Payment of Wage Act as the opposite party is a co operative society and not an industrial establishment? 3. Whether the Registrar, Co -operative Societies is a necessary party? 4. Whether the applicant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6260/ - as claimed and compensation? 5. Relief? The Authority, vide its order dated November 17, 1972, recorded the following findings: 1. There was a genuine ground for the petitioner in not filing the application under Section 15(2) of the Act within limitation and, therefore, delay is condoned. 2. That it had jutisdiction to entertain the application under the Act 3. That the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, is not required to be impleaded as a necessary party. 4. That the petitioner is entitled to wages for the period from 1 -9 -1963 to October 31, 1968 @ Rs. 100/ - amounting to Rs. 6200/ - 5. That the application is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 25/ -. The Authority, therefore, directed the employer non -petitioner to pay the following amounts to the employee -petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of the order: a. Wages Rs. 6200/ -b. Compensation Rs. 25/ -c. Costs Rs. 30/ - Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order aid direction of the Authority, the employer petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, before the District Judge., jodhpur. The learned District Judge, vide his judgment, dated December 6, 1973, allowed it in part and modified the order and direction passed 'by the Authority and, instead directed the payment of Rs. 1184/ - upto October 31, 1968. He, however, maintained the order of the Authority in respect of the costs and compensation. Against the appellante -judgment, the employee petitioner has filed this revision. It may be stated here that the employer -non -petitioner remained satisfied with the judgment dated December '6, 1973, passed by the learned District Judge in as much as no revision against the judgment was preferred by it.
(3.) I have heard Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I.C. Maloo, learned Counsel for the non -petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case.;