Skip to content


Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway Vs. Nand Lal Dubey - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1966)IILLJ709All
AppellantDivisional Superintendent, Northern Railway
RespondentNand Lal Dubey
Excerpt:
- - 180. the additional district judge thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and this court can, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, remand the appeal for a fresh hearing. however, before hearing the appeal on merits, the lower appellate court shall be well-advised to consider two questions of law:.....cover the months of march and april 1960 only. from the certified copy of judgment in payment of wages appeal no. 1 of 1960 decided by the additional district judge on 29 july 1961, it appears that another appeal had also been filed.5. while deciding the present appeal on remand the additional district judge shall have to consider the scope of the two appeal and in what circumstances two appeals were filed.6. section 17 of the payment of wages act makes a provision for an appeal. the appeal provided in the section is(a) against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-sectiontion (2) of section 15; or(b) against a direction made under sub-section (3) or (4) of that section.the appeal under consideration was filed by the employer and hence is against a.....
Judgment:

D.S. Mathur, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad, against the order dated 3 April 1961 of the Additional District Judge of Allahabad, dismissing his appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable, the valuation being less than Rs. 300.

2. From the record of the case it appears that Nand Lal Dubey, opposite party, moved an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, alleging that a sum of Ra. 16 had been wrongfully deducted from his wages for the months of January and February 1960. It was prayed that a direction be issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act for payment of his (Nand Lai's) wages wrongly deducted (amount already deducted being Rs. 30) or which may afterwards be deducted during the pendency of the application, together with ten times the amount so deducted by way of compensation. The application was disposed of under order dated 16 May 1960. In Para. 1 of the order it was mentioned as if the wages wrongly deducted amounted to Rs. 30. It was, however, mentioned in the operative part of the order and also in the finding recorded on issue 2 that the opposite party was entitled to the payment of deductions wrongly made from his wages beginning from January 1960.

3. On 18 May 1960 Nand Lal Dubey moved an application praying that a direction be issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 for payment of the deducted wages amounting to Rs. 60 with five times' compensation. This was allowed and in the record of direction issued on 21 May 1960 deducted wages were shown as Rs. 60 and compensation awarded as Rs. 300.

4. The appeal was originally drafted to cover the total period from January to April 1960 but was later amended to cover the months of March and April 1960 only. From the certified copy of judgment in Payment of Wages Appeal No. 1 of 1960 decided by the Additional District Judge on 29 July 1961, it appears that another appeal had also been filed.

5. While deciding the present appeal on remand the Additional District Judge shall have to consider the scope of the two appeal and in what circumstances two appeals were filed.

6. Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act makes a provision for an appeal. The appeal provided in the section is

(a) against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under Sub-sectiontion (2) of Section 15; or

(b) against a direction made under Sub-section (3) or (4) of that section.

The appeal under consideration was filed by the employer and hence is against a direction made under Sub-sectiontion (3). While determining the maintainability of the appeal, the Additional District Judge should have looked into the direction and not the order, Further as provided in Clause (a) of Section 17, no appeal shall be maintainable if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation does not exceed Rs. 300. In determining the maintainability of the appeal, one shall have to look into the total sum directed to be paid, and not the amount challenged in the appeal. It is open to the employer not to challenge the whole of the direction. For example, he may not challenge the amount of deducted wages but may challenge compensation alone. In such circumstances, the appeal shall be maintainable even though the amount of compensation awarded is less than Rs. 300, provided that the total sum directed to be paid under the direction exceeds Rs. 300.

7. As the total sum directed to be paid under the direction was Rs. 360, the appeal was maintainable, and it could not be held to be not maintainable simply because the amount challenged in the appeal was only Rs. 180. The Additional District Judge thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and this Court can, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, remand the appeal for a fresh hearing. However, before hearing the appeal on merits, the lower appellate Court shall be well-advised to consider two questions of law: firstly, whether the present appeal is maintainable on account of the direction having been challenged in an earlier appeal; and secondly, whether the decision in the other appeal is binding on the applicant and acts as res judicata.

8. The revision is hereby allowed in the sense that the order under revision is set aside and the appeal is remanded for a fresh hearing in accordance with the law. Cost of this Court shall abide the decision of the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //