AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Opposite party filed PW Case No. 1 of 1995 in Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City against the Chief Manager'' and Deputy General Manager of Allahabad Bank for a direction u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'') for payment of difference of wages and bonus together with compensation @ ten times of illegally deducted wages and interest.
The applicant was working as part time sweeper on daily rated wages. His wages are deducted and was not paid wages for Sunday (weekly off) and closed holidays. The Bank was an autonomous body. It denied that the applicant was ever in its employment as part time Sweeper. Post of Sweeper was still lying vacant. The applicant was not entitled to difference of wages. Sunday and holiday wages, bonus and compensation for the period, for which he had advanced his claim.
By order dated 18.3.1996, the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City issued direction u/s 15(3) of the Act for refund of illegally deducted wages of the applicant from 11.3.1994 to 31.7.1994 Rs. 1224/-, the Sunday and holiday wages. Rs. 5175/- and bonus Rs. 1410/-. Besides this, the Labour Court also granted compensation (c) six times of illegally deducted wages, i.e. Rs. 46734/-.
Against the said order. Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank filed Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 1996, u/s 17 of the said Act, which was dismissed by impugned judgment. Hence, this Revision Application.
Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Bank has already complied with the directions of the Labour Court. However, it was submitted that part of the order, whereby, u/s 15(3) of the Act direction was given to compute and assess compensation (c) six times on the amount deducted was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
On the other hand. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' counsel for opposite party, submitted that in view of bar u/s 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, present Revision Application is not maintainable. He further submitted that grant of compensation was a matter of discretion of the authority and the appellate Court rightly not interferred therewith.
Section 115(2) of the Code provides that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any decree or order, against which an appeal lies either to High Court or to any Court subordinate to it. So, in my view, submission of Mr. Jha in this regard has no leg to stand. Here, this Court in revision is not dealing with order passed u/s 15 of the Act by the competent authority under the said Act. Against such order petitioners had filed statutory appeal u/s 17 of the Act and have now come in revision against the appellate order. Hence, provisions of Section 115(2) are not applicable in the present case.
Since the two appellate forums provided u/s 17 are court of a small causes and District Court and not any particular judge, both courts are subordinate to this Court and comes within the purview of Section 115 of the Code. No further provision after appeal u/s 17 has been made in the Act and as such the appellate order is subject to revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 115 of the Code. The word ''final'' in Section 17(2) of the Act prohibits only appeal and not a revision. The present revision is, therefore, maintainable in this Court, u/s 115 of the Code against the impugned order passed by the District'' Court on an appeal u/s 17 of the Act.
So far as the discretion of the Authority u/s 15(3) of the Act is concerned, a finding of the lower Court on the question whether payment of wages were delayed or not cannot be disturbed in revision application. Whether the said finding was right or not. If wages are directed to be paid, compensation can also be ordered to be paid along with wages. Grant of compensation is a matter of discretion of the Authority.
In the present case it was not the case of the Bank that non-payment of wages was due to bona fide dispute, rather it came out with a case that the applicant had no right to claim wages. In such situation, in my opinion, when the Authority under the Act found the applicant entitled to refund of illegally deducted wages as also wages for Sunday and holidays, the said Authority was also Justified in awarding compensation u/s 15(31) of the Act Compensation under Sub-section (3) is not penal, but is in the nature of a payment by way of re- compensation for the loss of privation by reason of deduction from the wages paid.
In the aforesaid circumstance, 1 find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Revision Application is dismissed, but without costs.
Revision application dismissed.