Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The first question which arises is whether the Authority under the Wages Act has jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the non-petitioner No. 2. In this connection both the parties have placed reliance on Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjain v. Surajmal Mehta . In this case the employees of an Electricity Board were served with notices that their services would no longer be required. Upon this an application on behalf of the employees was submitted under Section 15(2) of the Wages Act to recover wages for the notice period and also retrenchment compensation payable to them under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. This claim was contested by the employer and the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Wages Act was also challenged. In this connection it was held that the Authority under the Wages Act cannot entertain a claim for compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act as it involved complicated questions of law. The proper authority was held to be the Labour Court. The compensation payable under Section 25F, 25FF and 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act was held to be included in the definition of wages but no time limit was fixed for the payment of this compensation. Referring to the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Wages Act, it was observed as under:

XXX XXX XXX The question, therefore, is whether on the footing that compensation payable under Sections 25FF and 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act being wages, within the meaning of Section 2(vi)(d) of the Act, a claim for it on the ground that its payment was delayed by an employer could be entertained under Section 15(2) of the Act. In our view it could not be so entertained. In the first place, the claim made in the instant case is not a simple case of deductions having been unauthorisedly made or payment having been delayed beyond the wage periods and the time of payment fixed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. In the second place, in view of the defence taken by Respondent 1, the Authority would inevitably have to enter into questions arising under the proviso to Section 25FF vis, whether there was any interruption in the employment of the workmen, whether the conditions of service under the Board were any the less favourable than those under the company and whether the Board, as the new employer, had become liable to pay compensation to the workmen if there was retrenchment in the future. Such an inquiry would necessarily be a prolonged inquiry involving questions of fact and of law. Besides, the failure to pay compensation on the ground of such a plea cannot be said to be either a deduction which is unauthorised under the Act nor can it fail under the class of delayed wages as envisaged by Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. It may be that there may conceivably be cases of claims of compensation which are either admitted or which cannot be disputed which by reason of its falling under the definition of wages the Authority may have jurisdiction to try and determine. But we do not think that a claim for compensation under Section 25FF which is denied by the employer on the ground that it was defeated by the proviso to that section, of which all the conditions were fulfilled, is one such claim which can fall within the ambit of Section 15(2).

10. On the basis of this decision, it can be said that the authority under the Wages Act is empowered under Section 15 of the Act to entertain matters concerning delay in payment of wages and deduction from wages and while doing so it can decide whether the deduction is authorised and permissible under the provisions of Wages Act. It cannot be said that merely because a question of law has arisen which has a wide effect it would become a matter beyond the purview of the Authority or because the employer has raised a plea that the deduction is authorised by a competent authority then it would become a matter which cannot be decided by the Authority. In the present case, the employees have come with the definite case that their wages have been deducted against the provisions of law and the case of the employer is that firstly there is no deduction and secondly if there is a deduction then it has been authorised by competent authority. Both these questions are such which the Authority under the Wages Act has jurisdiction to decide and such Authority cannot be divested of this power merely on the ground that the questions involved are complicated. The present matter cannot be equated with a claim for compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act which does not provide for any time for making the payment and the claim for such payment can also be defeated under the provisions of this section itself. The Industrial Disputes Act provides for separate forum for agitating claims for compensation arising under the provisions of the Act. Here, if there can be any alternative remedy, it is by way of a writ petition which cannot be said to be a remedy which should have been first availed of by the employees. On the contrary it would be contended in a writ petition that an alternative remedy by way of an application under Section 15(2) of the Wages Act was available.