Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jawahar Singh vs Rambharosi (2023:Rj-Jp:21419) on 6 September, 2023
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:21419]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 59/2009
Jawahar Singh S/o Ramia R/o Village And Post Lakhanpur Tehsil
Nadbai District Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
Rambharosi S/o Shri Dilsukh, R/o Village And Post Lakhanpur
Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.R. Tantia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 06/09/2023 This civil revision petition is directed against the judgement dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.23/2004 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/non-applicant (for brevity, "the non-applicant"), the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by the Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the Authority") in Case No.PWA/22/2000 allowing the application filed by the petitioner/applicant (for brevity, "the applicant"), has been reversed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for brevity, "the Act of 1936") against the non-applicant (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:49:57 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:21419] (2 of 5) [CR-59/2009] stating therein that despite working as driver on the tractor owned by the non-applicant, he has not been paid salary @ Rs.1,550/- per month from 15.07.1999 to 15.04.2000. While allowing the application, the Authority directed the non-applicant to pay the applicant a sum of Rs.13,950/- towards arrears of wages and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards penalty. The civil miscellaneous appeal preferred thereagainst by the non-applicant has been allowed and the order dated 12.02.2004 has been set aside by the learned appellate Court vide judgement dated 20.02.2009.
Assailing the judgement dated 20.02.2009, learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 17(1A) of the Act 1936, would submit that since the appeal preferred by the non-applicant did not accompany a certificate by the authority evidencing deposition of the amount payable under the order dated 12.02.2004, it was incompetent and was not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the judgement dated 20.02.2009 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by the authority be restored. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Executive Engineer UPSEB Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors.: 2002 (93) FLR 913.
Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant would submit that the learned appellate Court did not err in entertaining the appeal inasmuch as he has filed the requisite certificate of deposition albeit with some delay. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:49:57 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:21419] (3 of 5) [CR-59/2009] Heard. Considered.
Section 17(1A) of the Act of 1936 reads as under:-
"[(1A) 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.]"
A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Mohammed & Sans Vs. Authority: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.746/1980, while interpreting the aforesaid provision, held as under:-
"7. It is true that where ever the alternative remedy is too onerous then the courts have taken a lenient view of the matter and entertained petitions directly. But Section 17(1)(A) of the Act was inserted by way of amendment in 1965 for the purposes of advancing the social cause that the employee should be assured of the sum before he can be driven to further litigation. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom had made it a paramount condition so that the poor workman may not be made to suffer on account of litigation driven by the management. This is a statutory provisions which advanced the social justice and is consistent with the preamble of the Constitution. Thus, no exception can be taken and in number of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the District Judge against the award given by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act must be accompanied by a certificate that the amount in question has been deposited. In the present case, the amount in question is Rs. 19,716.66 and this cannot be said to be too onerous for the management so as to absolve them from the statutory liability. We are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 17(1)(A) is the statutory provision which has a social purpose, therefore, no exception can be taken to such provision and more- over, in the present case the amount in question is not very huge amount for the management being too onerous. The view taken by the learned District Judge that the appeal is not competent in view of the provisions of Section 17(1)(A) is consistent with the provisions of the statute and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:49:57 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:21419] (4 of 5) [CR-59/2009] Judge. Since we have found that the appeal was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge being incompetent therefore, we are not prepared to enter into the merits of the case."
In the aforesaid judgment, Section 17 (1A) has been held to be the mandatory provision. Similar view has been taken by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Marudhar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhagwan Ram & Ors.: S.B.C.R. No.185/1993 decided on 25.11.1994.
Similar view has been taken in case of Executing Engineer UPSEB (supra), wherein, it was held as under:-
"5. The Payment of Wages Act being a special law, which prescribes the mode and manner in which an appeal u/s 19(1A) of the Act has to be filed and the same has not been complied with, therefore, in view of the prohibitive language of Section 17(1A) of the Act, no appeal can be entertained as the same does not He. In my view, the objection of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents workman that because of the prohibitive language used u/s 17(1A) of the Act, no appeal shall lie, unless the manner prescribed in Section 17(1A) of the Act is followed before filing of the memorandum of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employer has relied upon a decision in 1987 AWC 47. particularly paragraphs 7 and 8. A perusal of the aforesaid decision would demonstrate that in that case, the money was deposited within the limitation prescribed and, therefore, this Court held that the defect of not accompanied the certificate of deposit, deposit can be cured if the same has been done within the limitation prescribed. In the present cases, it is admitted case of the parties that neither the certificate accompanied along with the memorandum of appeal, nor the deposit was made within the limitation prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employer has relied upon a decision regarding Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, but in view of my observations above, since the appeal has not been filed after following the procedure prescribed and beyond the limitation prescribed, the question of the applicability or otherwise of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act will not arise."(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:49:57 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:21419] (5 of 5) [CR-59/2009] Indisputably, in the present case, neither the memo of appeal accompanied the requisite certificate nor, the payment of the amount under the order dated 12.02.2004 was made before filing the appeal nor, within the period of limitation, i.e., 30 days from the date of passing of the order dated 12.02.2004. In view thereof, in the backdrop of the aforesaid precedential law, the appeal preferred by the non-applicant against the order dated 12.02.2004 was not maintainable and the learned appellate Court erred in entertaining the same.
Resultantly, this civil revision petition is allowed. The judgement dated 20.02.2009 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by the authority under the Act of 1936 is restored.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/7 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:49:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)