Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
996 INSC 1199
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)
  • N.N Goswami, Senior Advocate (Ms Indu Goswami and A.K Sharma, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
  • Dhruv Mehta, Arvind Varma, Fazlin Anam and Ms Monica Mehta, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Judges
  • Justice K. Ramaswamy
  • Justice G.B. Patnaik
Acts
  • Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act
  • Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
996 INSC 1199
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)
  • N.N Goswami, Senior Advocate (Ms Indu Goswami and A.K Sharma, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
  • Dhruv Mehta, Arvind Varma, Fazlin Anam and Ms Monica Mehta, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Judges
  • Justice K. Ramaswamy
  • Justice G.B. Patnaik
Acts
  • Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act
  • Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent, employed as a Shunter, instituted Civil Suit No. 329 of 1983 before the Additional District Munsif, Allahabad, seeking a declaration that he be promoted to the post of Driver ‘C’ with effect from 10-12-1980, the date on which his juniors were promoted. The trial court decreed the suit on 24-03-1984, and the decree was affirmed by the Additional District Judge on 18-07-1985. In compliance, the respondent was promoted on 10-06-1986.

Subsequently, on 08-07-1986, the respondent filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming back wages. The prescribed authority ordered payment of Rs 30,220 on 07-12-1988, which was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge. The Union of India then filed Original Application No. 617 of 1990 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad; the CAT dismissed the OA on 02-03-1995. The Union of India preferred the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. Notice was issued subject to the appellant depositing Rs 5,000 towards the respondent’s legal expenses, which amount was duly deposited.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act possessed jurisdiction to award back wages arising from the respondent’s promotion when such relief had not been sought in the earlier civil suit.
  2. Whether, in light of the jurisdictional question, the Central Administrative Tribunal could entertain the Original Application challenging the orders passed under the Payment of Wages Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The prescribed authority and the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act are not subordinate to the Central Administrative Tribunal; therefore, the Original Application before the CAT was not maintainable.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the authorities functioning under the Payment of Wages Act are not subordinate to the CAT, rendering the OA technically non-maintainable. However, it proceeded to examine the substantive question of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.

The respondent had earlier secured only a declaratory decree for promotion without claiming any monetary relief. By virtue of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a litigant who omits a relief available to him in an earlier suit is precluded from claiming it in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the respondent, having not sought back wages in the civil suit, was barred from pursuing that claim later.

Because the underlying claim for back wages was barred, the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain and grant the monetary relief. The orders of both the prescribed authority and the appellate authority were therefore without jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; orders under the Payment of Wages Act set aside.

The respondent’s award of Rs 30,220 in back wages is nullified, and no costs were awarded. The decision resolves the dispute between the parties but sets no broader precedent, as it turns on the application of Order II Rule 2 CPC to the specific facts.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Union Of India v. Punnilal And Others

    Order

    1. Delay condoned.

    2. Leave granted.

    3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

    4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad made on 2-3-1995 in OA No. 617 of 1990.

    5. The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a Shunter in 1980 he had filed a civil suit bearing No. 329 of 1983 in the Court of Additional District Munsif, Allahabad for declaration that the defendants, their agents and servants be directed to consider his promotion to the category of Driver ‘C’ in the pay scale of Rs 330-560 from 10-12-1980 when his immediate juniors were promoted to that category of employees. The decree came to be passed by the trial court on 24-3-1984. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Allahabad confirmed it on 18-7-1985. In compliance thereof, the respondent was promoted as Driver ‘C’ on 10-6-1986. Thereafter, the respondent filed the application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on 8-7-1986. The prescribed authority directed by order dated 7-12-1988 payment of back wages in a sum of Rs 30,220. The Union of India filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. Thereafter, the OA was filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. When the matter had come up for hearing, notice was directed subject to the appellant's depositing a sum of Rs 5000 towards the legal expenses incurred by the respondent. Pursuant thereto, the amount came to be deposited.

    6. It is contended by Mr Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent, that since the prescribed authority and the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act are not the authorities subordinate to the Administrative Tribunal, the OA is not maintainable. We find force in the contention. But, nonetheless, the material question that arises for consideration is whether the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has the jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act to compute back wages on promotion of the respondent as Driver ‘C’. Admittedly, when the respondent had the relief in the suit by way of declaration for promotion and the declaration having been given and become final, therein the respondent had not sought any relief for payment of back wages. Consequently, by operation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent is debarred to claim the relief of back wages. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act, therefore, has no inherent jurisdiction in the matter to entertain the claim for payment of back wages and for grant of the order.

    7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act stands set aside. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Union Of India v. Punnilal And Others
    (Oct 11, 1996)