AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
The appellants have filed this second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment dated 21.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Sikar, in Appeal No. 27/93, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants u/s 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ''the Act 1936'') was dismissed.
The registry of this Court has pointed out a defect that the appellants have not filed a certified copy of the decree. The learned Counsel for the appellants preferred two applications, one is dated 2.6.2005 and the another is dated 2.3.2006, for waiving the defect regarding filing the certified copy of the impugned decree dated 21.5.2002. But, the second appeal u/s 100 CPC always lies to the High Court from every decree, whereas no decree is prepared by deciding the appeal u/s 1? of the Act, 1936 by the District Judge, who decided the appeal as an appellate authority.
The learned Counsel for the appellants himself mentioned in the application that no such decree has been prepared, therefore, the same cannot be filed and requirement of filing the certified copy thereof may be dispensed with.
As mentioned above, second appeal is maintainable only against a decree, therefore, in absence of decree the present second appeal u/s 100 CPC is not maintainable.
It is relevant to mention that the present second appeal has arisen out of an application filed by workman-respondent u/s 15 of the Act, 1936, which was allowed and being aggrieved with the same an appeal was preferred by the defendant- appellants u/s 17(1) of the Act, 1936. It has specifically been provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, 1936 that the order passed u/s 17(1) is final which shows that the order passed u/s 17(1) of the Act, 1936 is final in nature and no further second appeal is provided in it. The order passed by the District Judge u/s 17(1) of the Act, 1936, as an appellate authority, may be subject to revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court but the said judgment passed by the District Judge u/s 17 of the Act, 1936 cannot be challenged in second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC.
Consequently the second appeal as well as both the applications dated 2.6.2005 and 3.3.2006 are dismissed.