- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway And Others v. Ram Prasad And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition challenges the order dated 4.5.1982 which allowed Payment of Wages Appeal No. 272 of 1981. This appeal was filed against an order dated 16.7.1981 that rejected an application under Section 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Initially, an application under Section 15 of the Act was allowed, holding Rs. 705 due against the opposite party. Upon non-compliance, an application under Section 20(6) was filed but rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The opposite party then filed an appeal which was allowed, leading to the present writ petition impugning that appellate order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appeal lies against an order rejecting an application under Section 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
- Whether the order passed by the Additional District Judge allowing the appeal (P.W Appeal No. 272 of 1981) is without jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- No appeal lies against an order rejecting an application under Section 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act.
- The appeal filed was wholly incompetent.
- The appellate order allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Opposite Party's Arguments
- Could not demonstrate any provision under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, allowing an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 20(6) of the Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, focusing on Sections 15, 17, 20(6), and 21. Section 20(6) prescribes punishment with an additional fine for failure or wilful neglect to pay wages by the date fixed by the authority, but does not provide for an appeal against orders rejecting applications under this section. The only provision for appeal under the Act is Section 17. Section 21 relates to the procedure for trial of offences under the Act and does not suggest any appellate remedy against orders under Section 20(6). Consequently, the court concluded that no appeal lies against an order rejecting an application under Section 20(6). The appellate order allowing the appeal was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision is as follows:
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.5.1982 passed in P.W Appeal No. 272 of 1981 is quashed.
The direct effect of this decision is the invalidation of the appellate order that allowed the appeal against the rejection of the Section 20(6) application. No broader precedent was established beyond clarifying that no appeal lies against orders rejecting applications under Section 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The court also noted that the opposite party may seek alternative remedies elsewhere, but no direction was issued regarding this.
S.N Srivastava, J.:— The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.1982 allowing payment of Wages Appeal No. 272 of 1981 preferred against order dated 16.7.1981 rejecting an application under Section 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The facts which borne out from the record are that an application under Section 15 of the Act was allowed and Rs. 705 was held due against opposite party. In case of non-compliance of order, application was moved under Section 20(6) of the Act. The application was rejected by Prescribed Authority.
3. The appeal filed by Ram Prasad opposite party against the said order was allowed. This order is impugned in the writ petition.
4. Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that against order rejecting the application under Section 20(6) of the Act, no appeal lies. Appeal was wholly incompetent and order passed by Additional District Judge allowing P.W Appeal No. 272 of 1981 is without jurisdiction. He urged that the appellate order is liable to be quashed.
5. Sri Satya Prakash, appearing for opposite party could not show any thing under the payment of Wages Act, 1936, that any appeal lies against an order rejecting application under Section 20(6) of the Act.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective arguments. I have also gone through various provisions of Payment of Wages Act. I am of the view that no appeal lies against the order rejecting application under Section 20(6) of the Act. Section 20(6) of Payment of Wages Act is being quoted below:
“If any person fails or wilfully neglects to pay the wages of any employed person by the date fixed by the authority in this behalf, he shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be punishable with an additional fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day for which such failure or neglect continues.”
7. Only provision for appeal under the Payment of Wages Act is Section 17 of the Act. Section 20 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 mentions penalty for offences under the Act. Section 20(6) also relates to punishment with additional fine for failure or wilful neglect to pay the wages.
8. Section 21 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, relates to procedure trial of the offence. There is no such provision under Section 21 of Payment of Wages Act also to infer that appeal lies against the order rejecting an application under Section 20(6) of the Act.
9. Thus, from discussion made above, I hold that no appeal lies from any order under Section 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act.
10. In case the opposite party is so advised, he may avail his alternative remedy elsewhere. No direction in this regard is required for the same as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.5.1982 passed in P.W Appeal No. 272 of 1981, is quashed. No order as to cost.
Alert