Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dated March 2, 1995, in Original Application No. 617 of 1990. The dispute concerned a claim for back wages consequent upon promotion of a railway employee who had earlier obtained a declaratory decree for promotion. The respondent, while working as a Shunter in 1980, filed Civil Suit No. 329 of 1983 in the court of Additional District Munsif, Allahabad, seeking a declaration directing the defendants, their agents and servants, to consider his promotion to the category of Driver 'C' in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560 from December 10, 1980, when his immediate juniors were promoted. The trial court passed a decree on March 24, 1984, and on appeal the Additional District Judge confirmed it on July 18, 1985. In compliance with the decree, the respondent was promoted as Driver 'C' on June 10, 1986. Thereafter, on July 8, 1986, the respondent filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The prescribed Authority, by order dated December 7, 1988, directed payment of back wages in the sum of Rs. 30,220. The Union of India filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order. When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, notice was directed subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 5,000 towards legal expenses incurred by the respondent, and that amount was deposited. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was maintainable, given the argument that authorities under the Payment of Wages Act are not subordinate to the Tribunal, and whether the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to compute back wages on promotion when the respondent had not sought back wages in the earlier civil suit. The respondent's counsel contended that since the prescribed authority and the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act were not subordinate to the Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application was not maintainable. The Supreme Court found force in this contention but nevertheless proceeded to consider the material jurisdictional question. The Court noted that the respondent had obtained a declaratory decree for promotion in the earlier suit and that decree had become final, but the respondent had not sought any relief for payment of back wages in that suit. Consequently, by operation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent was debarred from claiming the relief of back wages. The Court held that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the claim for payment of back wages and to grant the order. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Constructive Res Judicata - Bar of Omission to Claim Relief - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 2 Rule 2 - The respondent obtained a declaratory decree for promotion in an earlier civil suit but did not seek back wages in that suit; the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is debarred from entertaining a subsequent claim for back wages due to operation of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC; Held that the authority had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the claim for back wages (Paras Not mentioned). B) Administrative Law - Maintainability of Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal - Jurisdiction of Tribunal over Authorities under Payment of Wages Act - Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Section 15 - The respondent contended that the prescribed authority and appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act are not subordinate to the Administrative Tribunal, hence the Original Application was not maintainable; the Supreme Court noted force in this contention but proceeded to decide the jurisdictional question of the Payment of Wages Authority and ultimately allowed the appeal on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction under Section 15 to compute back wages on promotion when the employee had previously obtained a declaratory decree for promotion without claiming back wages; and whether the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was maintainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act set aside; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- The authority under Payment of Wages Act has no inherent jurisdiction to entertain claim for back wages when employee omitted to claim such relief in earlier suit for declaration
- Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars subsequent claim for omitted relief
- authorities under Payment of Wages Act are not subordinate to Central Administrative Tribunal.
