PARIMI VENKANNA Vs. MANAGING PARTNER THE MODERN SPUN PIPE CO BHIMAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that I am called upon to answer in this civil revision petition is whether cross-objections lie at the instance of the respondent in an appeal preferred under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

(2.) The material facts are brief; The revision petitioner is an employee in the service of the respondent. He filed a claim before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Visakhapatnam, for Rs. 2,875 as delayec' wages and for Rs. 700 as compensation. When the case was taken up for hearing the claimant was present. But the employer was absent. He Was set exparte and a direction was given to him to pay the sum of Rs. 2,875 claimed as delayed wages within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the direction. The authority, however, did not grant the claim for compensation. The employer preferred an appeal to the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru who was constituted as the appellate authority under the Act against the direction. The claimant, however, kept quiet without preferring an appeal, but filed cross-objections within 30 days from receiving the notice of the appeal in respect of his claim for compensation which he had not been granted by the authority. The office took an objection to the maintainability of the cross- objections and the District Judge (appellate authority) upheld this objection, saying that the only remedy available- for the claimant was to prefer a substantive appeal and the provisions of Order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Gode were not available to him. The claimant has filed this revision petition challenging that view.

(3.) Sri V. Narasimha Rao for the petitioner contends that the appellate authority is a Court within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code and consequently all the provisions of that Code including Order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code can be taken recourse to before it. The District Court which is constituted as the appellate authority is. not a creature of the Payment of Wages Act and had been existing even before that Act came into force. He relies on the language of rule 22 and points out that there are no limitations placed therein on the right of a respondent to file cross-objections in any appeal pending before a Court. He, therefore, maintains that the cross-objections filed by his client before the appellate authority are maintainable.