M P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN BHOPAL Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions Nos. 382, 333, 384 and 386 all of 1975. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that respondent Kishorilal was a driver employed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 20th November 1967 the bus of the Corporation which the respondent was driving was involved in an accident resulting in the death of a boy. The accident gave rise to a criminal case in which the respondent was prosecuted. The respondent was convicted by the trial Court on 14th november 1971. The respondent went up in appeal and the order of conviction was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge on 13th February 1972. The respondent made an application for recovery of wages for the period from 1st january 1972 to 23rd July 1972 before the Authority under the Payment of wages Act, 1936. The Corporation took the defence that the services of the respondent were terminated by an order passed on 31st January 1972 and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to any wages after that date. After recording the evidence, the Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent's services were not terminated as the order of termination was not communicated to him. The Authority, therefore, allowed the application for recovery of wages. The Corporation went up in appeal to the Industrial Court. The Industrial court also held that the order of termination dated 31st January 1972 was either not passed or, if passed, was not communicated to the respondent. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Authority that the respondent continued in service and was entitled to wages was confirmed by the Industrial Court and the appeal was dismissed. Misc. Petition No. 385 of 1975 has been filed for quashing of the orders of the Authority and the Industrial Court.

(2.) THE respondent made four other applications before the Authority for recovery of wages for the periods from 1st August 1972 to 27th July 1973, 1st august 1973 to 31st July 1974, 1st August 1974 to 31st November 1974 and 1st december 1974 to 28th February 1975. In all these applications, the Corporation has taken the same plea that the services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 31st January 1972. Nothing further has been done in these cases. The Corporation's contention is that the Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed with these applications and Misc. Petitions Nos. 382, 383, 384 and 386 of 1975 have been made in this Court for prohibiting the Authority to proceed with the applications made by the respondent.

(3.) THE main question argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Authority had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the services of an employee have been terminated and, therefore, all proceedings taken by the respondent before the Authority are incompetent. The relevant provision in this context is section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Subsection (1) of section 15 authorises the State Government to appoint an Authority "to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims. " Sub-section (2) of section 15 provides that where contrary to the provisions of the Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person may apply to the Authority for appropriate direction for payment of wages and compensation under subsection (3 ). The scope of section 15 was considered by the Supreme Court in shri Ambika Mills Co. v. S. B. Bhatt, (air 1961 s c 970,) and Payment of Wages Inspector v. B. E. S. and I. Co. , (AIR 1969 S c 590.) The Supreme Court held that in dealing with claims under section 15 the Authority would have jurisdiction to consider incidental questions; but in determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited. When an employee applies to the Authority that payment of his wages has been delayed by the employer for any particular period, the authority, in case of dispute, will have to determine whether the applicant was employed and whether the employment continued during the period for which the wages were not paid. If the employer contends that the applicant's employment was terminated, this could also be a question which the Authority will have to determine while deciding the application. These, in our opinion, would be all incidental questions falling within the jurisdiction of the Authority under section 15. In Ramcharan v. District Judge, Jabalpur, (1961 M P L J 1192=a IR 1962 M P 220.) an employee claimed retrenchment compensation before the Authority. After holding that the Authority has jurisdiction to decide a claim relating to retrenchment compensation because such a compensation is included in the definition of wages, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the Authority will also have jurisdiction to decide "the incidental questions, namely, whether the petitioner was at all an employee and whether his services had been terminated or whether he was still in employment". This case is a direct authority on the question that the fact of termination of service will be an incidental question and the Authority will have jurisdiction to decide it under section 15 (2) of the Act.