Union of India Vs. Shri Punnilal & Ors  INSC 1299 (11 October
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad made on March 2, 1995 in O.A. No.617 of 1990.
admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a Shunter in 1980
he had filed a civil suit bearing No.329/83 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 December 10,1980 when his immediate juniors
were promoted to that category of employees. The decree came to be passed by
the trial Court on March 24, 1984.On appeal, the Additional District Judge
Allahabad confirmed it on July 18, 1985.
In compliance thereof, the respondent was promoted as Driver `C' on June 10, 1986. Thereafter, the respondent filed
the application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on July 8, 1986. The prescribed Authority directed
by order dated December
7, 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.
the O.A. was filed in 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.5,000/- towards the
legal expenses incurred by the respondent Pursuant thereto the amount came to
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 Administration Tribunal, the O.A. 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 there in 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.
appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the authority under the Payment of
Wages Act stands set aside.