Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akola Zillah Dudh Utpadak Sangh, Sahakari Sansthanacha Sangh Ltd., a federal society of milk societies in Akola District, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28/01/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Akola, who was the Appellate Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act. By that order, the Appellate Authority dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.21/2006 and confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The respondents, Sheshrao Ramchandra Mhasaye and Jagannath Pandurang Kawale, were employees of the petitioner society, working as Senior Clerk and Milk Tester-cum-Senior Clerk respectively, with remuneration of Rs.840/- and Rs.960/- per month. They filed a common application under Section 15(2)(3) read with Section 17(A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, claiming difference in wages, which was numbered as P.W.A. Case No.3/1989. Since there was delay in filing, they also filed an application for condonation of delay, which was granted by the Authority. The parties filed pursis stating they did not wish to lead oral evidence and would rely on documents. The Authority partly allowed the application on 16th January, 2006, allowing the claim for leave wages for the period 1986 to 1989 as there was no dispute, but rejected the bonus claim for the period 1983-84 to 1986-87. The petitioner appealed, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found that the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority had correctly allowed the claim for leave wages and condoned the delay. The Court noted that the petitioner's challenge was limited to the allowance of leave wages and condonation of delay, and the bonus claim had been rejected. The High Court held that there was no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, and the petition was devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Payment of Wages Act - Delay Condonation - Section 15(2)(3) read with Section 17(A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - The respondents filed an application for difference in wages along with an application for condonation of delay, which was granted by the Controlling Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order. The High Court held that no interference was warranted as the delay was properly condoned and the claim for leave wages was allowed. (Paras 1-6) B) Payment of Wages Act - Leave Wages - Section 15(2)(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - The Controlling Authority allowed the claim for leave wages for the period 1986 to 1989 as there was no dispute. The Appellate Authority confirmed the same. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or error of jurisdiction. (Paras 3-6) C) Payment of Wages Act - Bonus Claim - Section 15(2)(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - The claim for bonus for the period 1983-84 to 1986-87 was rejected by the Controlling Authority. The respondents did not challenge that part. The High Court noted that the petitioner's challenge was only against the allowance of leave wages and condonation of delay. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 28/01/2011 passed by the District Judge, Akola (Appellate Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act) dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is liable to be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28/01/2011 and the order of the Controlling Authority dated 16/01/2006.
Law Points
- Payment of Wages Act
- 1936
- Section 15(2)(3)
- Section 17(A)
- delay condonation
- difference in wages
- leave wages
- bonus claim
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
