Supreme Court Revokes High Court Certificate in Payment of Wages Dispute, Holding No Separate Property Claim of Rs.20,000 Existed. Article 133(1)(b) Certificate Invalid Because Recurring Wage Liability Cannot Be Notionally Added to Subject Matter Value Under Payment of Wages Act and Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.

Appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution against a High Court judgment in a writ petition, along with an application for revocation of the certificate.

Appellant sought to sustain its appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis of the certificate; respondents sought revocation of the certificate.

Appellant obtained a certificate claiming that the recurring liability from wage claims exceeded Rs.20,000; respondents argued that the certificate was erroneously granted because no separate property question of requisite value was involved.

The Additional Authority dismissed overtime wage claims; the Third Additional Authority allowed weekly off day wage claims; the Court of Small Causes held all claims barred by the Award and dismissed the workmen's appeals; the High Court set aside the Additional Authority's order and restored the Third Additional Authority's order.

Whether the High Court's certificate under Article 133(1)(b) was valid where the subject matter of the appeal was claims for overtime wages and weekly off days for specific periods, and the appellant sought to include future recurring liabilities to meet the Rs.20,000 value requirement.

Appellant contended that the recurring nature of wage claims meant the judgment involved directly or indirectly a claim respecting property of value exceeding Rs.20,000, making the certificate valid under Article 133(1)(b). Respondents argued that the certificate was erroneously granted because the High Court's judgment only adjudicated specific claims for fixed periods and no separate property question of requisite value was involved.

To attract Article 133(1)(b), there must be a claim or question respecting property of value not less than Rs.20,000 in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute. Adding future interest or possible further claims to the original subject matter value is not permissible. A judgment that only adjudicates specified claims for particular periods does not involve any separate property question of the requisite value.

In order to attract article 133(1)(b) the essential requirement is that there must be involved in the appeal to this Court a claim or question respecting property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000/- in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute Adding future interest or possible further claims to the original value of the subject matter till the date of the judgment of the High Court and which items are not the subject of consideration by the High Court will not enable a party to plead that the claim so calculated exceeds Rs. 20,000 the certificate issued by the High Court under article 133(1)(b) was not proper and valid and hence the appeal was unsustainable

Respondents Nos. 1 to 14 filed 14 applications on March 3, 1958 under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for overtime wages for February 1957 to January 1958; respondents Nos. 15 to 80 filed 66 similar applications. The Additional Authority dismissed these claims on October 13, 1962, holding that the applicants were not covered by the Establishments Act. Respondents Nos. 81 to 118 filed 38 applications in 1962-63 for weekly off day wages; the Third Additional Authority allowed these claims on April 26, 1963, finding the district office to be a commercial establishment. The Court of Small Causes, Bombay, heard appeals from both sets of decisions and by a common judgment dated February 11, 1965, held all claims barred by the Award, Part II of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949, dismissing the workmen's appeals and allowing the company's appeal. All 118 workmen filed Special Civil Application No. 1987 of 1965 before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227; the High Court by judgment dated February 6, 1967 held the claims not barred, set aside the Additional Authority's order and remanded for calculation of overtime wages, and restored the Third Additional Authority's order for weekly off day wages. The company obtained a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) from the High Court and filed Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1968; respondents filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1300 of 1972 seeking revocation of the certificate.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 133(1)(b), Article 133(1)(a), Article 133(1)(c), Article 226, Article 227
• Payment of Wages Act, 1948: Section 15
• Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948: Section 18(3)