1955 (3) TMI 43 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
2. Classification of the employee as a casual laborer or temporary employee.
3. Entitlement to wages under the monthly-rated scheme versus daily-rated scheme.
4. Scope of the Authority's power to determine terms of employment and wages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act

The main controversy revolved around whether the Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (the Act) had the jurisdiction to pass the orders it did. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Authority is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, and its power must be found within the provisions of the Act. The Act aims at regulating the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in industry, specifically addressing issues of deductions from wages and delays in payment. The Court found that the respondent's claim did not fall within the categories of deductions specified in Section 7 of the Act, as there was no allegation of delay or unauthorized deductions from wages. Instead, the respondent's grievance was about not being placed on a higher wage scheme, which the Court determined was outside the Authority's jurisdiction.

2. Classification of the Employee as a Casual Laborer or Temporary Employee

The Authority had decided that the respondent was not a casual laborer but a "temporary employee" entitled to a scale of Rs. 55-150 plus allowances, based on the nature of work being similar to that of permanent staff. The Authority also referenced Article 39(d) of the Constitution, advocating for equal pay for equal work. However, the Supreme Court found that the Authority did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the classification of employees, as it was not within the ambit of the Act to make such determinations.

3. Entitlement to Wages under the Monthly-Rated Scheme versus Daily-Rated Scheme

The respondent claimed that he should have been placed on a permanent cadre and paid monthly wages instead of daily wages. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent's complaint was essentially about not being upgraded to a higher wage scheme rather than any actual deduction or delay in payment of wages. The Court held that the Authority under the Act could not direct the employer to upgrade an employee from a daily wage-earner to a monthly wage-earner, as this involved a determination by higher departmental authorities, which was beyond the Authority's jurisdiction.

4. Scope of the Authority's Power to Determine Terms of Employment and Wages

The Supreme Court clarified that while the Authority could determine the actual terms of the contract of employment to ascertain the wages, it could not decide on potential wages that an employee might be entitled to if placed on a different wage scheme. The Court emphasized that the Authority's power was limited to addressing claims of deductions and delays in payment of wages as defined under the Act. The respondent's claim to be placed on a higher wage scheme was deemed a matter for departmental appeal or revision, not for the Authority under the Act.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Authority and the High Court were quashed. The Supreme Court held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim for higher wages based on a different classification.

Dissenting Judgment:
One judge dissented, arguing that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to determine what the wages payable were, including the authority to decide whether the respondent should be classified as a temporary employee entitled to higher wages. The dissent emphasized that the Tribunal's decision should be respected unless it was shown that the higher classification depended on a determination by a superior authority.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Authority and the High Court were quashed, with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court concluded that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the respondent's classification and entitlement to higher wages.