9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 22, Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. Limitation under Article 102, Limitation Act. 3. Liability for fines imposed on the Manager under the Factories Act and Payment of Wages Act. 4. Adjudication on the set-off claimed by the appellants. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 22, Payment of Wages Act, 1936: The appellants contended that the suit was barred under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which states that no court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages or any deduction from wages that could have been recovered by an application under Section 15 of the Act. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 15 and 22 of the Act, noting that Section 15 deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages. The court concluded that the present case did not involve a mere delay in payment of wages but a refusal to pay based on allegations of mismanagement and liability for accounting, which could not be adjudicated by the authority under Section 15. The court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was not ousted in this case, as the matter involved an accounting dispute and liability for fines, which were beyond the scope of the Payment of Wages Act. 2. Limitation under Article 102, Limitation Act: The appellants argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation under Article 102 of the Limitation Act, as the suit was filed on 10-8-1944, while the wages were due up to 10-8-1941. The court noted that the defendants had acknowledged their liability by a letter dated 13-9-1941 (Exhibit I/C), which extended the period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized that an acknowledgment of liability need not be express and can be implied from the language used. The court found that the letter contained a clear acknowledgment of the plaintiff's right to have the accounts taken and an admission of liability to pay any balance found due. Therefore, the suit was within the limitation period. 3. Liability for fines imposed on the Manager under the Factories Act and Payment of Wages Act: The appellants contended that they were not liable for the fines imposed on the Manager for violations under the Factories Act and Payment of Wages Act. The court found that the fines were imposed for offences committed by the Press, and the Manager was held responsible only as a representative of the Press. The court noted that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the personal negligence of the Manager in connection with the offences. Therefore, the court held that the Manager was entitled to recover the amounts paid as fines from the proprietors of the Press. 4. Adjudication on the set-off claimed by the appellants: The appellants argued that the learned Munsif should have treated their claim for set-off as a plaint in a cross-suit and adjudicated upon it. The court noted that the appellants did not pay the necessary court-fees for their claim of set-off, suggesting that they did not intend their statement to constitute a demand against the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the High Court amendment to Rule 6, sub-rule (1) of Order 8, Civil Procedure Code, required defendants claiming set-off to pay court-fees as if they were plaintiffs. The court held that the learned Munsif was not obligated to investigate the defendants' claim without the payment of court-fees and, therefore, did not err in not adjudicating the set-off. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, as the court found no merit in the appellants' contentions regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, limitation, liability for fines, and the set-off claim. The court upheld the decree of the lower courts, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to recover the unpaid salary and fines paid by the deceased Manager.
|
