9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (12) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,853.60P. payable to the employees under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On respondent 1 contesting the claim as also the jurisdiction of the Authority, the Authority raised certain preliminary issues, namely : (1) whether the said application was maintainable in view of the revocation of the company's licence, (2) whether the Authority had jurisdiction to determine the liability of respondent 1 for retrenchment compensation before the amount thereof was ascertained under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and (3) whether in view of the services of the workmen not having been interrupted by the said transfer and the terms and conditions of service applicable to them after the said transfer being not in any way less favourable than before and the said Board as the new employer being liable after the transfer for compensation in the event of retrenchment, the employees were entitled to claim any compensation. By his order dated May 21, 1963 the Authority held against respondent 1 on the question of jurisdiction. Respondent 1 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and Division Bench of the High Court held that Section 15 of the Act did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porated providing therein compensation for lay-off and retrenchment. It also provided a definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo). Chapter VA, as it then stood, did not expressly provide for compensation for termination of service on account of transfer of an undertaking by an agreement or as a result of operation of law or the closure of the undertaking. Consequently, in Hariprasad v. Divikar , [1957]1SCR121 this Court held that retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) and the word 'retrenched' in Section 25F meant discharge of surplus labour or staff by the employer for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and did not include termination of services of ah* workmen on a bona fide closure of an undertaking or on a change of ownership or management thereof. This decision was followed first by an ordinance and then by Act 18 of 1957 incorporating in the Act the present Sections 25FF and 25FFF It will be noticed that both these sections use the words as if the workman had been retrenched . The intention of the legislature was, therefore, clear that it did not wish to place transfer and closure on the same footing as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch compensation falls within the definition of wages, cases may arise where it would not be a simple question of recovery of wages. In the present case, for instance, the defence taken by respondent 1 was that he was not the person responsible for payment of compensation and that the right of the workmen was defeated by reason of the proviso to Section 25FF being, according to him, applicable inasmuch as these workmen were continued in the employment by the said Board, the new employer, that therefore there had been no interruption in their employment, that the terms and conditions of service given to them by the new employer were in no way less favourable than those they had when the company was the employer, and that the new employer was responsible for payment of compensation if any retrenchment took place in future. The question, therefore, is whether in view of the limited jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Act, it was intended to deal with such questions, which in some cases might well raise complicated problems of both fact and law. 6. While considering the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 of the Act it is relevant to bear in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 33C(2) go even into the question whether the award under which the workman had made a claim was a nullity. Being in the nature of an executing court it could interpret the award and also consider the plea that the award sought to be enforced was a nullity. It is thus clear that a workman whose claim, monetary or otherwise, is disputed by his employer can lodge such a claim before a specified Labour Court under Section 33C and obtain an inexpensive and expeditious remedy. The question then is whether for such a claim the legislature intended to provide alternative remedies both under the industrial Disputes Act and the Payment of Wages Act for deciding this question it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of and the scheme of the Payment of Wages Act. 7. The Act was passed to regulate the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in any factory or by a railway administration or by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration or in any industrial establishment to which a State Government by notification has extended the Act. Section 3 lays down as to who shall be responsible for payment of wages. Section 4 provides for the fixation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to 13 extending upto ₹ 500/-. 8. It is explicit from the terms of Section 15(2) that the Authority appointed under Sub-section 1 has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section 5. This is clear from the opening words of Sub-section 2 of Section 15, namely, where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed. These being the governing words in the Sub-Section the only applications which the Authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 15(2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment under Section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed. 9. In D'Costa v. B.C. Patel [1935] 1 S.C.R. 1355 this Court held after considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of the Authority. But it has at the same time to be kept in mind that the jurisdiction under Section 15 is a special jurisdiction. The Authority is conferred with the power to award compensation over and above the liability for penalty of fine which an employer is liable to incur under Section 20. 11. The question, therefore, is whether on the footing that compensation payable under Sections 25FF and 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act being wages within the meaning of Section 2(vi) (d) of the Act, a claim for it on the ground that its payment was delayed by an employer could be entertained under Section 15(2) of the Act. In our view it could not be so entertained. In the first place, the claim made in the instant case is not a simple case of deductions having been unauthorisedly made or payment having been delayed beyond the wage-periods and the time of payment fixed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. In the second place, in view of the defence taken by Respondent 1, the Authority would inevitably have to enter into questions arising under the proviso to Section 25FF, viz., whether there was any interruption in the employment of the workmen, whether the conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
