Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered whether appeals pending before the District Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were liable to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or whether the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 and the District Judge under Section 17 remained undisturbed. The appellant, an employee of the respondent Controller, Printing & Stationery, filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on 23 November 1987 for recovery of Rs 48,274.50, alleging illegal withholding and unauthorised deductions from wages. The Authority passed an ex-parte order against the respondent, whose application to set aside was rejected on 23 June 1988; the respondent's appeal under Section 17(1) was filed on 15 July 1988 before the District Judge, but was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal after its establishment, where it was dismissed on 31 August 1990. Meanwhile, the appellant's main application was allowed on 20 July 1988 for Rs 43,092.50, against which the respondent filed an appeal under Section 17(1) before the District Judge, Chandigarh, which was also transferred to the Tribunal; the Tribunal by order dated 4 July 1994 allowed the appeal and set aside the Authority's order. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that the appeal pending before the District Judge could not be legally transferred under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The legal issue was whether a claim under the Payment of Wages Act constituted a 'service matter' within the meaning of Section 3(q) and Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and whether Section 29 operated to transfer such proceedings. The Court analysed the scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, noting that tribunals were established under Article 323A to adjudicate service matters exclusively, and Section 14 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal 'Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act' in relation to recruitment and service matters. Section 29 provides for transfer of pending cases where the cause of action would have been within the Tribunal's jurisdiction if it had arisen after establishment. The Court adopted a rule of interpretation giving ordinary meaning to the expressions, construing the provisions as a whole, and referred to precedents including S.P. Sampath v. Union of India, Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., and Madan Lal Fakir Chand Dudhediya v. Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. It held that a claim for wages under the Payment of Wages Act was not a service matter within the ambit of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and therefore the appeals pending before the District Judge under Section 17 were not liable to be transferred to the Tribunal under Section 29. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 4 July 1994, and restored the appeal before the District Judge for decision on merits. The judgment preserved the special statutory jurisdiction of the Authority and the District Judge under the Payment of Wages Act despite the establishment of Administrative Tribunals.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals - Transfer of Pending Cases - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Sections 14, 29 - The court examined whether an appeal pending before District Judge under Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was liable to be transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29. The court held that a claim for wages under Payment of Wages Act is not a 'service matter' as defined in Section 3(q) and covered by Section 14, hence the cause of action would not fall within Tribunal's jurisdiction if it had arisen after establishment; therefore Section 29 transfer was not attracted. Held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits and its order was set aside. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Labour Law - Payment of Wages - Jurisdiction of Authority and Appellate Court - Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sections 15, 17(1) - The court held that the special jurisdiction conferred on the Authority under Section 15 and appellate jurisdiction on District Judge under Section 17(1) for recovery of wages remained undisturbed despite the establishment of Administrative Tribunals. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 did not expressly exclude the Payment of Wages Act jurisdiction; the words 'Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act' in Section 14 indicate that other remedies are preserved. Held that the District Judge was competent to hear the appeal and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Interpretation of Statutes - Ouster of Jurisdiction - Whole Statute Construction - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 14 - The court emphasized that provisions ousting jurisdiction of regular courts must be construed strictly and as a whole, each portion throwing light on the rest. The court referred to the rule in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. and observed that the ordinary meaning of expressions must be given. Held that transfer of pending cases under Section 29 is limited to those that would have been within Tribunal's jurisdiction if they had arisen after establishment, and this condition was not satisfied for Payment of Wages Act appeals. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether appeals pending in Court of District Judge under Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act were liable to be transferred to Administrative Tribunals under Section 29 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, or whether jurisdiction of Authority and District Judge remained undisturbed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 04-07-1994, and held that the appeals pending before District Judge under Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act were not liable to be transferred to Administrative Tribunal under Section 29. The matter was remitted to the District Judge for decision on merits.
Law Points
- A claim for recovery of wages under Payment of Wages Act
- 1936 does not constitute a 'service matter' under Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985
- Section 29 transfer of pending cases applies only where cause of action would have been within Tribunal's jurisdiction if it arose after establishment
- Section 14 begins with 'Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act' preserving other statutory remedies
- jurisdiction of Authority under Section 15 and District Judge under Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act remains undisturbed.
