Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1971 DIGILAW 34 (KAR)

KRISHNARAJENDRA MILLS LTD. v. LAKSHMINARAYANA

1971-02-09

VENKATASWAMI

body1971
( 1 ) THESE two petitions under S. 115 CPC. can be disposed of together as they raise a common question of law. ( 2 ) THEY have been preferred by the common respondent in Crl. M. Ps. 14 and 16 of 1967, on the file of the Court of the 2nd City Magistrate and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the Mysore taluk area. Mysore. The said petitions have been preferred by several workers of Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) under Ss. 15 (2) and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the course of the hearing of the said petitions on behalf of the workers, applications were made under rules 11 and 12 of Or. 26 of the CPC. read with S. 18 of the Act, for the appointment of a Commissioner to examine the accounts of the respondent mills and prepare a statement in respect of over-time work as detailed in a proforma and the memo of instructions. The authority made an order for the issue of commission on certain terms, with which we are concerned for the present. Aggrieved by this order, the Mills has approached this Court in the present revisions. ( 3 ) SHRI T. Rangaswamy Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised only one contention. Briefly summarised it is as follows. Having regard to the provisions of S. 18 of the Act, only such provisions of the CPC. as relate to the taking of evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, are made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Rule 11 of Mysore payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1963, will not in any way enlarge the jurisdiction of the Authority, beyond what has been conferred under s. 18 of the Act. By way of illustration, it can be pointed out that the provisions like Orders 11, 13, 16 and 18 enacted hni Sch. I to the CPC. , would fall within the ambit of the power conferred on the authority by virtue of the provisions of S. 18 of the Act. By way of illustration, it can be pointed out that the provisions like Orders 11, 13, 16 and 18 enacted hni Sch. I to the CPC. , would fall within the ambit of the power conferred on the authority by virtue of the provisions of S. 18 of the Act. By way of analogy the provisions of S. 11 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can be referred to, wherein there is a specific reference to the power of the Tribunals constituted under that Act, enabling the issue of commissions for the examination of witnesses, among other matters. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of such a specific enumeration of the power relating to the issue of commission in the present Act, the existence of such power cannot be Implied. ( 4 ) IN support of the above submission the learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of the High Court of Rajastan in Divisional Personnel officer, N. Rly. v. Regional Labour Commissioner, (1965) 2 LLJ. 78 This case, in my opinion, is distinguishable and therefore is not of much assistance to the petitioner. It was a case under S. 15 of the Act, wherein an employee questioned a recovery made from his salary as an illegal deduction The authorities constituted under the Act, without considering the defence raised by the administration in its proper perspective allowed the claim partially, presumably based on certain admissions made therein. The order was sought to be supported by the employee on the basis of Rule 6 of Or. 12 of the CPC. The said provision in the Code relates to the passing of a judgment or order on the basis of admissions made by parties without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties. In this context, the Court ruled that the provisions of Or. 12, r. 6 CPC had no application to the proceedings under S. 15 of the Act, and that R 11 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules 1937 did rot extend to the application of the CPC. beyond what was provided for under S. 18 of the Act. In the present rase no such judgment or order has been made on admissions of the parties The cases are still at the stage of trial and the taking of evidence in regard to the questions raised in the pleadings. beyond what was provided for under S. 18 of the Act. In the present rase no such judgment or order has been made on admissions of the parties The cases are still at the stage of trial and the taking of evidence in regard to the questions raised in the pleadings. ( 5 ) S. 18 of the Act, reads thus:"18. Powers of authorities appointed under S. 15.-Every authority appointed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 15 shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC. , 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, and everv such authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of s. 195 and of Chapter XXXV of the Crl. P. C. , 1898 (5 of 1898)". It is plain from this section, notwithstanding Rule 11 of the Payment of wages (Procedure) Rules, that all the powers of a Civil Court which are in any manner connected with the taking of evidence, are exercisable by an Authority under the Act. The words "for the purposes of taking of evidence" are wide enough to take within their ambit all the steps that may be necessary for the collection and adduction of evidence by parties and, if necessary, with the assistance of the Court wherever permissible under the CPC. In the instant case, it is clear that the Mills have been putting forth some objection or other for the production of the relevant books from which alone it could be gathered whether the workers have or have not been paid properly their over-time wages. It is further to be seen that it is almost impossible for the workers numerous as they are, to satisfactorily establish their case without reference to the books, which are exclusively in the custody of the Mills. Rules 11 and 12 of Or. 26 relate to issue of commissions for an examination or adjustment of accounts and for the issue of such instructions as may be found necessary by the Court. The report of a Commissioner under such circumstances will not be ipso facto evidence in the case unless such Commissioner has been examined on the report submitted by him. 26 relate to issue of commissions for an examination or adjustment of accounts and for the issue of such instructions as may be found necessary by the Court. The report of a Commissioner under such circumstances will not be ipso facto evidence in the case unless such Commissioner has been examined on the report submitted by him. In these circumstances, i fail to appreciate how the procedure enjoined by the Code in this behalf can be said not to partake of the character of procedure for the purpose of taking evidence within the meaning of S. 18 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN this connection, attention was invited by Shri Balachandran, learned Counsel for the respondents, to a decision of the Bombay High court (Nagpur Division) in Ramakrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory v. First Civil Judge, First Class, Nagpur, AIR. 1959 Bom 181. In that case, the question arose as to whether Or. 11 of CPC. , which relates to discovery and inspection of documents, would fall within the ambit of S. 18 of the Act. The Court held that the said provisions would squarely fall within the ambit of the provisions of S. 18 of the Act. It is further to be seen from this case that the decision was not rested on the scope or interpretation of the words occurring in S. 18, viz. , "for the purpose of taking evidence". On the other hand it was specifically observed that such a situation would fall within the other clauses in S. 18 of the Act relating to compelling of production of documents. Hence this case, in my opinion, is also not directly in point. ( 7 ) ONE other facet of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner requires to be noticed. As observed earlier, some sustenance was sought to be derived from the provisions of S. 11 (3) of the Industrial disputes Act, wherein also the powers of the Tribunals in the context of the provisions of CPC. have been referred to. This argument cannot also be accepted for the reason that the said statutory provisions, although they relate to powers of an Authority or Tribunal similarly constituted, must be interpreted with reference to the clear terms employed therein, and for such a purpose recourse to analogous provisions in another statute cannot ordinarily be resorted to. have been referred to. This argument cannot also be accepted for the reason that the said statutory provisions, although they relate to powers of an Authority or Tribunal similarly constituted, must be interpreted with reference to the clear terms employed therein, and for such a purpose recourse to analogous provisions in another statute cannot ordinarily be resorted to. Assuming such a course is permissbile, i am not satisfied, that there is any ambiguity in the language employed under S. 18 of the Act necessitating recourse to other statutes. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Iam clearly of the opinion that these petitions cannot succeed. The petitions therefore are dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .