9911796707
TMI Blog1950 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It seems that by the terms of Sukumar Mukherjee's employment he was entitled to a month's leave on full pay every year. The employers wishing to end Mukherji's services gave him a month's wages and terminated his employment summarily. The employee made a claim in the Court of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for a month's pay in lieu of the period of leave which he was unable to make use of. The Court held that he was entitled to the payment of a month's wages in lien of this period of leave and that is the only question in issue in this petition. 3. Mr. Bagchi who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the decision of the Court was clearly erroneous. On behalf of the apposite party, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in Theo Lazarus v. E. M. DeSouza Co. A. I. R. 1933 Bang. 85: (146 I. C. 946). But I do not think it is necessary to discuss this question any further. Even assuming that the payment of the month's wages to the workman without calling upon him to work amounted to giving him wages for the period of leave that he was entitled to, all that Mr. Bagchi can contend is that the Court made a mistake in law. There is no question that under Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, the Court had full authority to entertain this claim made by the workman for delayed wages and the most that can be said is that in deciding the claim the Court erred in law. 6. Though this Court has a light to interfere with decisions of Courts and tribunals under i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law in treating a month's wages in lieu of leave as due. Further, it appears to me that there is no injustice in this case. The employers, for reasons best know to themselves, desired to get rid of this employee immediately. They made it impossible for him to take his month's leave and the order of the Court below even if it was not legally justified, could never be described as unjust or harsh. 8. In the circumstances I can see no ground for interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution and that being so the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs -- the hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. Gopendra Nath Das, J. 9. I agree. Banerjee, J. 10. I agree. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
