Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Director Rural Development & Another vs Fatima Bano And Others on 29 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR C Rev. No. 126 of 2008 Director Rural Development & another Petitioners Fatima Bano and others Respondents !Mr. S. A. Vakil, Advocate ^Mr. Masood Ahmad, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge Date: 29/07/2010 :J U D G M E N T:
The Civil Revision Petition calls in question Award passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner Anantnag under Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called the Authority) as also order of learned Principal District Judge Anantnag (hereinafter called Appellate Court) dated 08.07.2008, disallowing an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the Award passed by the Authority.
Perusal of record reveals that the respondents on 24.3.2007 filed an application under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, complaining therein that their wages had been withheld by the petitioners without any justification and sought a direction, commanding the petitioners to disburse the unpaid wages. The application was allowed on 31.12.2007 and an amount of Rs.1,33,800/- determined by the Authority as the amount payable on account of unpaid wages to the respondents. The petitioners filed an appeal against order of Authority in the Appellate court. The appeal having been preferred beyond the prescribed period, the petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Court vide order dated 08.07.2008 dismissed application for condonation of delay and also dismissed the appeal as time barred.
The order of the Appellate court dated 08.07.2008 as also Award dated 31.12.2007 are questioned in this revision petition on the grounds that the orders of the Authority as also that of the Appellate Court are contrary to the law and liable to be set aside. The Authority is alleged to have made Award in absence of any evidence to support the conclusions arrived at. The respondents are alleged to have played a fraud on the Authority as also Appellate Court. It is averred that the respondents earlier filed a Civil Suit, withheld vital information from the Civil Court, and the Civil Court though having no jurisdiction, entertained and disposed of the civil suit. The respondents are alleged to have obtained Award on fraudulent grounds and employed deceitful means to succeed in the suit and the application under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act.
I have gone through the revision petition as also record received from the Authority pertaining to the application in question. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Section 17 Payment of Wages Act provides for appeal against order of the Authority under section 15 of the Act, dismissing or, allowing application under section 15 of the Act. Section 17 embodies the procedure and requirements for filing of appeal that are to be fulfilled, before the appeal is filed. The period prescribed for filing the appeal under section 17 is 30 days from the date order under section 15 is made. Section 17 (1)(A) provides that no appeal under section 17 is to lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a Certificate of the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. It follows that appeal filed without depositing the amount directed to be paid to the claimant is not maintainable and even in the event such deposit is made the appeal is to meet the same fate, if the certificate by the Authority to the said effect is not appended to the memorandum of appeal. In the present case the petitioner admittedly filed the appeal not only beyond the period prescribed under section 17 but also without making deposit required under section 17(1)(A) and enclosing certificate from the Authority with the memorandum of appeal. Learned Appellate court dismissing the application for condonation of delay, inter-alia, on the ground that the appeal itself was incompetent because of failure of petitioners to adhere to the requirements of section 17(1)(A) of the Act and destined to fail on said ground even if allowed to be filed and that the Payment of Wages Act being a special Act prescribing its period of limitation for filing the appeal, Section 5 of the J&K Limitation Act could not be pressed into service by the appellant.
Section 17 of the Act, as already pointed out, prescribes 30 days from the date order under section 15 is made, as the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Section 17 is a self contained provision as regards appeal and does not provide for extension in the prescribed time. The law makers by non-inclusion of such a provision have made their intention clear that the period prescribed is to be adhered to and respected. Had the law makers intended to make scope for extension of the period prescribed for filing the appeal, a provision like one in Section 15 of the Act would have been made/added to Section 17 of the Act. It needs to be pointed out that under section 15 of the Act an application for payment of delayed wages or questioning illegal deductions from the wages may be filed within 12 months from the date the deductions from the wages are made or the payment of wages due was to be made. Section 15(2) Proviso 2, however, authorizes the Authority to entertain an application even after period of 12 months, where the applicant satisfied the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making application within such period. Such a provision, as already pointed out, is absent from Section 17 of the Act. It is no more res integra that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not, like any other special law prescribing its own period of limitation, apply to the appeal to be preferred under section 17.
This apart, the requirement of Section 17(1)(A) is to be mandatorily followed. The intention of Section 17(1)(A) is aimed at discouraging unnecessary appeals against the Awards made by the Authority. The aforesaid provision insists on deposition of awarded amount with the Authority before appeal is filed against Award. The intention of the Legislature is that the amount of award should be deposited with the Authority before an appeal is preferred so that if the appeal fails the amount is released in favour of the claimant immediately. While interpreting Section 17 and 17(a) of the Act, we cannot afford to lose sight of the purpose and object of Payment of Wages Act 1936. The Payment of Wages Act is welfare legislation, intended to provide a speedy and summary procedure for recovery of wages by an employed person from the employer. Delay in payment of wages to the employed person or unwarranted deductions from the wages on one or other pretext, are discouraged by the Act. To achieve said object, the amount awarded by the Authority is required to be deposited so that though an appeal against Award may delay the payment of withheld or deducted wages for a while, yet there must be no delay once the appeal is dismissed. Section 17(1)(A) is mandatory in character and debars an appeal without first making deposit of the award amount with the Authority.
Viewed thus the appellate court has been right in holding that the application for condonation of delay was bereft of any merit and further that the appeal itself was not only time barred but also bound to fail on account of failure of the petitioner to adhere to the requirements of Section 17(1)(A).
In the circumstances no case is made out for interference either in the order of the appellate court dated 8.7.2008 or Award of the Authority under the Act, against which appeal preferred by the petitioner, has already failed.
The Civil Revision is dismissed accordingly.
(Hasnain Massodi) Judge Srinagar 29.07. 2010 Ajaz Ahmad