Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2372 (RAJ)

Keshar Singh v. Executive Engineer

2005-09-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-The instant revision petition is filed against the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 171/1997. By this Judgment the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Udaipur dated 28.07.1997 2. The appeal filed by the State was allowed only on the ground that Payment of Wages Authority could not exercise jurisdiction under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 because the claim arose from the award passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur dated 08.02.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Whether the Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 15(2) in respect of award passed by the labour Court or not is decided by this Court in the Judgment reported in 2004 (3) DNJ 1398 (Raj.), State of Rajajasth & Ors. vs. Bhawani Shanker & Anr., wherein this Court adjudicated the matter and held that Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is mentioned in Para 16 which is as follows: (i) That both the Payment of Wages Act as well as the Industrial Disputes Act are special enactments and as such the principle generalia specialibus non derogant is not applicable. (ii) That the remedies provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1936 as well as Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 are independent and alternative and one does not exclude the other. (iii) That the remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 is wider in scope and more favourable to the workman than the remedy under Section 15 of the Act of 1936. (iv) That when a workman is governed by the provisions of both the Act of 1936 as well as Act of 1947 it is open to him to avail either of the remedies provided under those Acts. (v)That a claim barred by time under Section 15 of the Act of 1936 can be entertained under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. 4. Agreeing with the aforesaid proposition, I am of the view that the Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936. Such jurisdiction can also be exercised by the labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Agreeing with the aforesaid proposition, I am of the view that the Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936. Such jurisdiction can also be exercised by the labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. In this view of the matter, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned Judgment passed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur dated 25.03.2003 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for deciding the appeal on merit. It is further directed that the appeal shall be decided within the period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The stay granted in this revision petition with regard to amount so deposited by the employee will continue till adjudication of the appeal.