9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. Applicability of Clause 5 of the Agreement to certain employees. 3. Res judicata in the context of previous applications by employees. 4. High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936: The principal question in this appeal concerns the nature and extent of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority by Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The appellant contended that the applications made by the respondents were incompetent under Section 15, arguing that the jurisdiction conferred on the authority is limited and should not be extended inferentially. The Act aims to provide a speedy and effective remedy for claims arising out of illegal deductions or unjustified delays in payment of wages. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether a particular employee falls under a specific category is so intimately connected with the problem of wages that it would be unreasonable to exclude such a question from the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 15. The Court concluded that the authority has the jurisdiction to determine the terms of the contract and whether an employee falls within a particular category, as this is incidental to deciding the main question of what the terms of the contract are. 2. Applicability of Clause 5 of the Agreement to Certain Employees: The respondents claimed that they were semi-clerks and occupied a position lower than that of a full-fledged clerk and higher than that of an operative, thus falling under Clause 5 of the agreement. The appellant argued that unless an employee satisfied the requirements of Clause 2, Clause 5 would be inapplicable. The Supreme Court found that Clause 2 applies to clerks, while Clause 5 provides a separate scale for employees who are neither clerks nor operatives. The Court held that the error committed by the appellate authority was manifest and obvious, as it misread the two clauses by making Clause 5 subject to Clause 2. The High Court was justified in correcting this error by issuing a writ of certiorari. 3. Res Judicata in the Context of Previous Applications by Employees: The appellant argued that the present applications were barred by res judicata. The authority and the appellate authority had found that the claims made by Punamchand and Vishnuprasad were barred by res judicata, while Shamaldas' application was dismissed on the ground that he could not claim the status of a semi-clerk. The High Court found the concurrent findings on res judicata to be manifestly erroneous. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve deeply into this issue, as the main contention was regarding the jurisdiction and applicability of Clause 5. 4. High Court's Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution: The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 by interfering with the decision of the appellate authority. The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari can be issued not only in cases of illegal exercise of jurisdiction but also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the error committed by the appellate authority was manifest and obvious, justifying the High Court's intervention. The appellate authority had misread the clauses of the agreement, leading to a patently erroneous decision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to issue the writ of certiorari, as the error was self-evident and did not require an elaborate examination of the record. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to correct the manifest error committed by the appellate authority. The Court affirmed that the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act has the jurisdiction to determine the terms of the contract and whether an employee falls within a particular category, as this is incidental to deciding the main question of what the terms of the contract are. The High Court's intervention was justified, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
