Saumya Ranjan Patnaik vs State of Orissa

A. Pasayat, J.—The only point involved in this application is whether application made by the complainant in terms of Section 15(3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short, the ''Act'') can be treated as a criminal complaint, or has to be dealt with by the concerned Court according to procedure applicable to a Court of Civil jurisdiction.

Section 15 of the Act deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages and. penalty for malicious or vexatious claims. State Government is empowered to appoint by a notification in the Official Gazette Presiding Officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ''Industrial Act'') or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State, or any Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages or delay in payment of the wages of persons employed or paid in that area including all matter incidental to such claims. Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section deals with application to be made to such authority for a direction under Sub-section (3). if allegation is that contrary to the provisions of Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person or any payment of wages has been delayed, a person who is affected or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under the Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1) can make such application. The proviso mandates that application is to be presented within twelve months from the date on which deduction from wages was made or from the date payment of wages was due to be made, as the case may be. The second proviso permits entertainment of the application after prescribed period of twelve months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. Sub-section (3) provides that if any application is entertained under Sub-section (2), the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer or other persons responsible for payment of wages u/s 3 or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as may be deemed necessary, without prejudice to any other penalty -to which such employer or other person is liable under the Act, direct the refund of the amount deducted or direct payment of delayed wages together with payment of such compensation as may be deemed proper. The maximum compensation is restricted to ten times amount deducted in the former case, and Rs. 25/- in the latter.

Section 18 deals with the power of the authority appointed u/s 15. Since this is pivotal provision on which the present dispute revolves round, it needs to be extracted, and reads as follows:

"18. Powers of authorities appointed u/s 15 - Every authority appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, and every such authority , shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of S, 195 and of (Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that the authority appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 has powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ''CPC'') for the, purpose of taking evidence and enforcing attendance of the witnesses and compelling production of documents, and such authority is deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the ''Code''). Section 20 deals with penalty for offences under the Act, and the procedure in trial of offences is indicated in Section 21. A conspectus of provisions contained in Ss. 15,18,20 and 21 leaves no manner of doubt that the. authority while acting in, terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 is a Civil Court under CPC and procedure relating to trial of offence is not applicable. Therefore, in the case at hand, learned Magistrate was not justified in directing recording of statement u/s 313 of the Code, and proceeding as if he was dealing with trial of an offence; in a proceeding undisputedly u/s 15 the Act. Those procedures are not applicable to the present dispute. He shall continue the proceeding as if he is a Civil Court and decide the matter to avoid unnecessary delay, petitioner, and Sri Alekha Chandra Tripathy who has filed an application for intervention are directed to appear before the, concerned Court on 3-5-1995 without further notice, Since proceeding is pending for about three years, the concerned Court would do well to dispose of the proceeding itself by 26-6-1995.

The Criminal Misc. case is allowed to the extent indicated above.