(Delivered by the Chief Justice.)
The only point pressed upon us by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman for fixing the amount payable to him as back wages in con-sequence of the award of the Labour Court dated 11th September 1954 in and by which the management was directed to reinstate the workman with back wages. The contention was that the matter really fell within the province of S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and the workman should have moved the authority specified in that section for the relief he sought and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In our opinion the contention cannot be accepted f or two reasons. Firstly, we think that S. 33-G(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough to cover a case like this where the award of a Labour Court merely gave a benefit to the workman, namely, the benefit of back wages, without specifying the amount the workman had become entitled to receive from the employer. This benefit is certainly one in respect of which the worker could apply to the Labour. Court for determination of the actual amount. Secondly, we think that though the term “back wages” is used to describe the benefit being awarded to the workman who has been without employment till the reinstatement, the claim would not be a claim to wages which fell within the scope of the payment of Wages Act. We therefore hold that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain She petition filed by the workman. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
V.C.S
Comments