9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the Payment of Wages Act regarding entitlement to pay in lieu of leave; Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with decisions of lower courts or tribunals; Application of legal principles in determining the correctness of lower court decisions. Analysis: The case involves a petition seeking to set aside or vary an order made by the Court of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, where the main issue is whether an employee is entitled to a month's pay in lieu of leave not taken due to summary termination of employment. The petitioners, as employers, terminated the employee's services summarily by paying him a month's wages instead of providing a month's notice. The Court of Authority held in favor of the employee, stating he was entitled to the payment of a month's wages in lieu of the unutilized leave. The petitioner's argument was that the payment was in lieu of notice, not leave, and the Court erred in law. However, the Court emphasized that even if the payment could be considered as wages for the leave period, any error made by the Court was a mistake in law, not a jurisdictional issue. The Chief Justice highlighted the limited scope of the High Court's power under Article 227 to interfere with lower court decisions, emphasizing that the power of superintendence should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the lower courts have clearly exceeded their authority. Quoting a previous case, it was noted that the High Court's superintendence power is meant to ensure that lower courts act within their legal boundaries and not to correct every legal error. In this case, the Court found no grounds for interference as there was no injustice despite any potential legal error by the lower court. Ultimately, the Chief Justice concluded that there was no justification for the High Court to intervene under Article 227 as there was no clear error or injustice in the lower court's decision. The petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. Justices Gopendra Nath Das and Banerjee concurred with the Chief Justice's decision, leading to the discharge of the rule with costs assessed at three gold mohurs.
|
