Skip to content


Piera Singh Bhagwansingh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 52-D of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1956P& H238
ActsPayment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 15; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20
AppellantPiera Singh Bhagwansingh
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
Appellant AdvocateParty in person
Respondent Advocate R.S. Narula, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the divisional superintendent, delhi, and can be sent to any place within that division and that the cause of action arose in delhi because the bill of payment was prepared at delhi and the deductions complained of were also made at delhi......application was made under the payment of wages act at delhi. the union of india objected that the delhi authority had no jurisdiction to try the matter which was sustained and it was ordered that the petition be returned for presentation to the proper authority. 3. the petitioner's case is that he is employed under the divisional superintendent, delhi, and can be sent to any place within that division and that the cause of action arose in delhi because the bill of payment was prepared at delhi and the deductions complained of were also made at delhi. but the jurisdiction under the act is not based on this. section 15 provides for jurisdiction and is as follows: '15. the state government may ..... appoint any commissioner for workmen's compensation or other ..... to be the authority.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kapur, J.

1. This is a rule obtained against an order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at Delhi.

2. The petitioner was an Assistant Station Master at Rathdhana in the District of Rohtak. It is alleged that deductions were made from the wages of the petitioner which were illegal and unauthorised by law and an application was made under the Payment of Wages Act at Delhi. The Union of India objected that the Delhi Authority had no jurisdiction to try the matter which was sustained and it was ordered that the petition be returned for presentation to the proper Authority.

3. The petitioner's case is that he is employed under the Divisional Superintendent, Delhi, and can be sent to any place within that Division and that the cause of action arose in Delhi because the bill of payment was prepared at Delhi and the deductions complained of were also made at Delhi. But the jurisdiction under the Act is not based on this. Section 15 provides for jurisdiction and is as follows:

'15. The State Government may ..... appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other ..... to be the authority tohear 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'.

4. The petitioner, as I have said before, was employed at Rathdhana. He was also paid his wages there. Even if his pay can be called wages the Authority to decide this matter is the Authority at Rohtak and not at Delhi. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition and dischargethe rule, but there will be no order as to costsin this Court.


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