 History Chief
Justice of India Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir Judges Former Chief Justices Registry LowerJudiciary Sub Registrars Weekly
Causelists Sections Pendency
Judgements Oath Commissioners
Judis Online Official
Calender News & events J&K
Law Reporter Links |
JKLR-Part(IV) OWP 98/2001 Back To Index |
(2001)
1 J & K LAW REPORTER
408 SHIV NATH AND
OTHERS
Petitioners OWP
98 / 2001, decided on 1.3..2001.
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936) - S. 17 (1-A) - Appeal - Deposit of award
money before filing appeal - Held : Mandatory.
There can be no dispute with the proposition that provision of section 17(1-A) are
mandatory and they are to be compiled with.
[Para 5]
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936) - S. 17 (1-A) - Certificate of the deposit
by the Authority - If not filed with memorandum of appeal due to some exceptional and
unavoidable circumstances - Whether right of appeal defeated - Held: No.
... [T]he basic requirement of S.17(1-A) appears to be that the appellant must
beore he prefers an appeal deposit the amount awarded against him. If no such deposit is
made before the filing of the appeal the appeal shall be incompetent. The requirement
regarding certificate by the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the
amount payable under the direction appealed against is to provide satisfactory proof in an
uncontestable manner of the fact that the requisite amount has been paid. If due to some
exceptional and unavoidable circumstances the certificate is not filed along with the
memorandum of appeal the right of appeal cannot be defeated.
[Para 6] Advocates who appeared in this case : Mr.
Jagjit Rai, Advocate for the petitioner Cases referred : Chronological 1. Hajari Ram v. The Mantri Khadi Mandir,
Bikaner, AIR 1979 Rajasthan 76 2. Dy.Chief Mechanical Engineer, Central Railway
workshop Jhansi v. The District Judge Jhansi and Ors. 1982 Lab.I.C.278 JUDGMENT AND ORDER
An application was preferred under the payment of wages Act. This was filed by
Darshan Lal respondent No.2. He was supporting the case of others also. The total amount
which was claimed was Rs.39,800/-. The authority under the payment of wages Act allowed a
sum of Rs.13,168/- The operative part of the order passed by the authority under the
payment of Wages Act is being reproduced below:- “I
therefore, accordingly pass an order of the aforesaid total amount, amounting to
Rs.12,168/-(Rupees thirteen thousand, one hundred and Sixty eight only) alongwith the
compensation @ 20/-each in favour of the claimants namely Darshan Lal, Moti S/o Massu,
Mast Ram S/o Munshi Ram, Vasdev S/o Balak Ram and
Mulkh Raj S/o Rohlu Ram to be apportioned in the manner as stated above against the
non-applicants.”
Two appeals were preferred, one was preferred by the present petitioner and other
was preferred by Darshan Lal. Both the appeals came to be rejected. So far as the appeal
preferred by the present petitioner is concerned, this was rejected on the ground that the
amount which was found to be due by the authority constituted under the payment of Wages
Act, had not been deposited. It was observed that there is non-compliance of Section
17(1-A). Therefore, taking this view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the present
petitioner was dismissed.
The relevant provision which required the deposit to be made is as under :- “(1-A)
No appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is
accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has
deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against.”
The petitioners however submits that an amount of Rs.13,268/- was deposited vide
cheque No.011750/000118 dated 26th of May,1990
and the same was credited in he account of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Udhampur. The
requisite averments are made in paragraph “4”of the petition. This paragraph is
being reproduced below:- “That
the learned court below has rejected the appeal of petitioners on the solitary ground of
non-compliance to provisions of section 17 proviso (1-A) of the payment of wages Act
besides on facts it is respectfully submitted that the claim of respondents No.2 to 6 was
not at all maintainable before respondent No.1 yet an award was passed. Whereas the
petitioners herein deposited an amount of Rs.13,268/- through Executive Engineer,
PWD(R&B) Udhampur vide cheque No 011750/000118 dated 26.5.1990 and the same was
credited in the official account of respondent No.1 on 13.6.1990. A certificate to this
fact has been issued by respondent No.1 a copy whereof is annexed herewith and marked as
annexure-C hereto.”
Reliance has also been placed on a certificate issued by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner J&K Government Udhampur. This certificate is being produced below:- “DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE Certified that Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B)
Udhampur has deposited an amount of Rs.13,268/- (Rupees thirteen thousand two hundered and
sixty eight only), bearing cheque No.011750/000118 dated 26.5.1990 in the case of Dharshan
Lal V/s Shiv Nath, and the amount has been credited in our official account on
13.6.1990.”
It is seen that the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed on the
grounds that the provisions of section 17 (1-A) were not compiled with.
There can be no dispute with the proposition that provision of section 17(1-A) are
mandatory and they are to be compiled with.
A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case reported as Dy.Chief Mechanical Engineer, Central Railway workshop.
Jhansi v. The District Judge Jhansi and Ors. 1982 Lab.I.C.278, was of the opinion that
the basic requirement of S.17(1-A) appears to be that the appellant must beore he prefers
an appeal deposit the amount awarded against him. If no such deposit is made before the
filing of the appeal the appeal shall be incompetent. The requirement regarding
certificate by the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount
payable under the direction appealed against is to provide satisfactory proof in an
uncontestable manner of the fact that the requisite amount has been paid. If due to some
exceptional and unavoidable circumstances the certificate is not filed along with the
memorandum of appeal the right of appeal cannot be defeated.
The Rajasthan High Court in case reported as Hajari
Ram v. The Mantri Khadi Mandir, Bikaner, AIR 1979 Rajasthan 76, observed that where
the amount is deposited by cheque and a certificate is issued by the concerned authority,
then that would be good and valid for the purpses of preferring an appeal. The purpose
behind insisting on the compliance of Section 17 (1-A) was indicated. What was said by the
Rajasthan High Court in the above case is being reproduced below :- “.
. . . . The object of section 17(1A) of the Act is that it attempts to put a stop to
useless and harassing litigation against a poor and weak employee who may be deprived of
his just dues and has to depend on the amount of wages for his sustenance. It is to assure
an employee that he will receive the amount of wages awarded to him in case appeal fails
as an appeal postpones his right to receive the amount of wages. It is for the Authority
against whose direction or order an appeal is preferred to be satisfied that the appellant
has deposited the amount payable.”
In the present case, a certificate was issued by the competent authority that
deposit has been made. This certificate has been noticed above. In view of the above, the
matter is remanded book to the appellate authority who would reconsider the matter and
pass appropriate orders. Appeal would not be dismissed, merely on the ground that the
deposit in terms of section 17 (1-A) has not been made. Parties to appear before te
appellate authority on 19th of Feb 2001. In case any of the parties do not appear, then
the appellate authority would issue notices to all concerned.
Disposed of accordingly. |