# Mohd. Arif v. M/s Mirza Glass Works, Firozabad and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 633
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-26
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 884 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ajoy Nath Ray, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-arif-v-m-s-mirza-glass-works-firozabad-and-others-40502
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII Rule 5
readwith Payment of wages Act 1936-S15 and 18-Special Appeal-against the
judgment
passed
by
Single
Judgepetition arises out against the Order
passed by the Prescribed Authority under
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act
1936-within the meaning of tribunalentrusted with the Power of Civil Courtheld-appeal barred-not maintainable.

Held: Para 5 and 6

From a conjoint reading of Section 15 (1)
with Section 18 of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936, it is clear that the authority
empowered to decide claims arising out
of deduction from wages is entrusted all
the powers of Civil Court under the Code
of Civil Procedure for the purposes of
taking evidence and for attendance and
compelling the protection of documents.
Thus the said authority has trapping of
Court and is a tribunal. Any order, thus,
passed by authority under Section 15 of
the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is an
order passed by tribunal. The special
appeal being barred against an order of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
634
one Judge exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution
arising out of a writ petition from an
order
of
tribunal,
the
preliminary
objection raised by counsel for the
respondents has substance.

The appeal is barred under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and is
dismissed as not maintainable.

## Text

2 All] Mohd. Arif V. M/s Mirza Glass Works, Firozabad and others 633
 Reliance in this regard has been placed
on two decisions of the Apex Court
namely, Shankarasan Dash Vs. Union
of India JT 1991 (2) S.C. 380 and State
of M.P. and others Vs. Raghuveer
Singh Yadav and others (1994) 6 S.C.C.
151. As such, it has been contended that
in such view of the matter, the petitioner
who had merely filed his application for
being given appointment does not acquire
any right to be appointed or be considered
for appointment.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and keeping in view
that the subsequent advertisement has
been issued on the basis of the guidelines
issued by the State Government and also
considering that the petitioner does not
possess the essential qualification for
appointment on the post T.B.H.V. even
according to the guidelines of the Central
Government as have been relied by the
petitioner and also keeping in view the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid two cases relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents, the
prayer made in this writ petition is not
liable to be granted.

7. This writ petition lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
costs.

 Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 884 of 2005

Mohd. Arif

...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Mirza Glass Works, Firozabad and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Y.S. Saxena
Sri D.K. Kulshreshtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V. Sahai
C.S.C.

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII Rule 5
readwith Payment of wages Act 1936-S15 and 18-Special Appeal-against the
judgment
passed
by
Single
Judgepetition arises out against the Order
passed by the Prescribed Authority under
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act
1936-within the meaning of tribunalentrusted with the Power of Civil Courtheld-appeal barred-not maintainable.

Held: Para 5 and 6

From a conjoint reading of Section 15 (1)
with Section 18 of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936, it is clear that the authority
empowered to decide claims arising out
of deduction from wages is entrusted all
the powers of Civil Court under the Code
of Civil Procedure for the purposes of
taking evidence and for attendance and
compelling the protection of documents.
Thus the said authority has trapping of
Court and is a tribunal. Any order, thus,
passed by authority under Section 15 of
the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is an
order passed by tribunal. The special
appeal being barred against an order of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
634
one Judge exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution
arising out of a writ petition from an
order
of
tribunal,
the
preliminary
objection raised by counsel for the
respondents has substance.

The appeal is barred under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court and is
dismissed as not maintainable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.)

1. A preliminary objection has been
raised by counsel for the respondents that
this appeal in not maintainable in view of
the fact that writ petition was filed against
an order passed by Prescribed Authority
against the appellant under the Payment
of Wages Act, 1936.

2. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules
of the Court provides that special appeal
shall not lie from a judgment of learned
single Judge passed in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226/227
of the Constitution in respect of any
judgment, or order or award of a tribunal,
Court or statutory arbitrator. Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is
extracted below:-

[5. Special Appeal-An appeal shall
lie to the Court from a judgment (not
being a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject
to the Superintendence of the Court and
not being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise
of its of Superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award (a) of a tribunal Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act,
with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution, or (b) of the
Government or any Officer or authority,
made or purported to be made in the
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act of one Judge.]"

3. The question for consideration is
as to whether the Prescribed Authority
under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is
a tribunal. Section 15 (1) of the Payment
of Wages Act, 1936 provides that the
State Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, appoint the Presiding
Officer of any Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal, or under any corresponding law
relating
to
the
investigation
and
settlement of industrial disputes or any
Commissioner
for
Workmen;s
Compensation or other officer with
experience as a Judge of a Civil Court to
be authority to hear and decide all claims.
Section 15 (1) of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936 is extracted below:-

"Claims arising out of deductions
from wages or delay in payment of
wages and penalty for mallclous or
vexatious
claims-
(1)
The
State
Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazett, appoint [a presiding
officer of any Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under
any corresponding law relating to the
investigation and settlement o industrial
Commissioner
for
Workmen's
Compensation
or
other
office
with
2 All] Rajendra Kumar Karanwal V. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others 635
experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or
as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the
authority to hear and decide for any
specified area all claims arising out of
deductions from the wages, or delay in
payment of wages, [of persons employed
or paid in that area, including all matters,
incidental to such claims;

....................:"

4. Section 18 provides for powers of
authorities appointed under Section 15
which is extracted below:-

"18.
Powers
of
authorities
appointed under Section 15- Every
authority appointed under sub-section (1)
of section 15 shall have all the powers of
a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the
purpose of "taking evidence and of
enforcing the attendance of witnesses and
compelling the production of documents,
and every such authority shall be deemed
to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of
section 195 and of (Chapter XXVI of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974.)"

5. From a conjoint reading of
Section 15 (1) with Section 18 of the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it is clear
that the authority empowered to decide
claims arising out of deduction from
wages is entrusted all the powers of Civil
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure
for the purposes of taking evidence and
for
attendance
and
compelling
the
protection of documents. Thus the said
authority has trapping of Court and is a
tribunal. Any order, thus, passed by
authority under Section 15 of the Payment
of Wages Act, 1936 is an order passed by
tribunal. The special appeal being barred
against an order of one Judge exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution arising out of a writ petition
from an order of tribunal, the preliminary
objection raised by counsel for the
respondents has substance.

6. The appeal is barred under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court
and
is
dismissed
as
not
maintainable. Appeal Dismissed.

---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45102 of 2003

Rajendra Kumar Karanwal
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Some Narayan Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma
Sri Namit Sharma

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 30 (5)-Scope of Revision-Order
the
petitioner
permitting
tenant
to
deposit the rent in court-in case of
refusal to accept the rent by the land
lord-District
Judge
by
impugned
judgment-exercised
the
power
of
revisional court and set-aside the order
passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)-held-in
view of decision of Anwar Ali caseRevisional
Court
acted
beyond
jurisdiction-No
appeal
or
revision
maintainable against the order passed by
Munsif under Section 30 (1) of the Act.