IMPERIAL TOBACCO CO OF INDIA LTD Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, an authority appointed under Section 28 (1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (Act VIII of 1954), entertaining an application under Section 28 (2) of the same Act by some of the employees of the Imperial Tobacco Co., of India Ltd. for wages due from their employer on account of over-time work, after condoning the delay in making that application. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) provides that an application for claim of wages can be made in the manner within such time and to such authority as may be prescribed for a direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act. Section 40 of the Act provides for the powers of the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act and particularly, under Clause (2) (d) to make rule providing for the authority before whom, the time within which and the manner in which the employee or any legal practitioner or authorised agent or an officer of a registered trade union or an Inspecting Officer shall make an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 28. The rule made in that respect prescribes that such an application shall be made within six months from the dale of which the payment of wages is due. There is a proviso to the relevant Rule 22 in the following terms :

(2.) There was a preliminary objection raised by the workmen i.e., the opposite party here who filed the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 28 (1) of the Act, against the maintainability of the application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the impugned order was passed not by a Court, much less a civil Court and not by a Court subordinate to High Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen urged that the authority prescribed under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act is not a Court and is not subordinate to this High Court, in which case Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to challenge the order passed by him. This objection has no merit for two reasons. It is now well settled that any person or authority entrusted with the responsibility of judicial functions to be exercised in a judicial manner, i.e., in accordance with the principles of law and following the procedures laid down by any law, will be taken as a Court. In that sense, although an authority acting under a particular statute may not be termed as a Court and some other authority or some other Court may be referred to in some other context in the same statute, yet such authority entrusted with judicial functions will be deemed to be a Court. See the cases of A. Hasan v. Mohammad Shamsuddin, AIR 1951 Pat 140 and Mossamat Dirji v. Srimati Goalin, ILR 20 Pat. 373: (AIR 1941 Pat 65 (FB)).

(3.) The next question is whether the Assistant Labour Commissioner though deemed as a Court in that sense, can be held to be subordinate to this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to several decisions to resist the objection of the workmen on the ground. But, all these cases dealt with the statutes in which provisions were made for taking an appeal against the order of a particular authority to the District Court, i.e., to the District Judge. Under Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the District Court is subordinate to the High COURT and an appellate order passed by such a District Court under such statutes was, therefore, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The latter part of Section 5 of the Code provides that every civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a district Court and every Court of small cause is subordinate to the High Court and District Court. Since the appellate District Court under a special statute can be subordinate to the High Court, the authorities against whose judicial orders the District Court entertains an appeal are also deemed to be subordinate to the High Court. That analogy, however, will not be strictly, applicable to the present case because, an order passed under Section 28 of the Act by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not appealable before a District Court, but before an Industrial Tribunal. That, however, presents no obstacle for the petitioner who has also invoked the powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by a petition filed in this case. The authority acting under Section 28 of the Act, is, no doubt, also a Tribunal by the very nature of its functions and duties, like the authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act See Rajkumar Mills Ltd Indore v. Inspector Payment of Wages, Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 Madh B 60. The word "superintendence" in that article is wide enough to include the power of judicial revision or superintendence--Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, 1954 SCA 334: (AIR 1954 SC 215). In that view, if not under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can entertain the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution The preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties cannot, therefore, succeed.