Karimnagar Municipality v. Authority Under Paym...

1. This writ petition raises rather an important question of law as to whether in the face of S. 15(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim by a workman of a local authority, like the Municipality which is the writ-petitioner in the instant case. It is urged in support of the plea of the Municipality that inasmuch as a Municipality is the local authority and coming within the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act, all service matters including that of a claim of wages, as it is a condition of service, have got to be adjudicated only by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and not by the Payment of Wages Authority.

2. Sri Gopal G. Naik, in support of his argument has cited a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Gangaram Topji Hupade v. Digamber Sadashiv Kanwale [1992 — II L.L.J 408]. In the said case, a writ petition was filed in the matter arising for appointment of respondent as police patel under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1976. A contention was raised that the High Court was having jurisdiction. But, repelling the same, the Bombay High Court held that on the advent of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the High Court jurisdiction was barred. A police patel is concerned with service in connection with the affairs of the State and is appointed by an officer of the State Government and is governed by the conditions of service under the relevant rule or the regulation, as the case may be. As such, he comes under the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The same analogy cannot be applied to the second respondent in the instant case. Even though the petitioner-municipality is a corporation and by virtue of Sub-secs.(2) and (3) of S. 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, all service matters relating to conditions of service have got to be adjudicated by the Tribunal constituted for the State under the said Act, but the said Act itself makes exceptions under S. 28 thereof which reads.

“On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service of persons appointed to any service or post,

no Court except—

(a) the Supreme Court; or

(b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters.”

3. The first respondent is an Authority constituted under S. 15(1) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with the object to ensure payment of wages in particular form and at regular intervals without undue delay. Special matters and disputes are entrusted to the said authority for adjudication. It is not within the competence of the said authority to decide upon the validity of termination of service of the employee nor does the first respondent has the right to decide about the claim of retrenchment relief or benefit. The first respondent has right to adjudicate whether any earned wages are due to an employee like the second respondent. If that be so, the first respondent cannot be construed as a Court and is only an authority under beneficial legislation with an avowed object of checking unscrupulous employers evading wages. The first respondent fits in as an authority under the corresponding law for the time being in force, i.e, Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

4. In view of what is stated supra, the first respondent is excepted from the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in view of S. 28(b) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim for wages filed by the second respondent. This view of mine is fortified by the decision in General Manager, North Eastern Railway v. Sripat [1987 — I L.L.N 865] It is needless to mention that the first respondent will decide the said claim for payment of wages on the basis of the material available before him.

5. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs.