# Power Corporation Ltd v. K.Thangappan"

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 201
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-01-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29644 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/power-corporation-ltd-v-k-thangappan-41345
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1 All] D.A.V. Public School, Meerut V. P.A. (Minimum Wages Act) 1948 and others

201
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29644 of 2006

D.A.V. Public School (U.P.) Meerut

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Prescribed Authority (Minimum Wages Act)
1948/ Assistant Labour CommissionerBijnor and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh
Sri Ashok Kumar Lal
Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh
S.C.

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section 22C (2)-claim for arrear of wages-workman
already drawing more than 1600/- per
month-direction for payment of arrears
of
salary
Vth pay commission and
imposition
by
fine
as
per
beyond
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 8

Moreover by virtue of Section 1(6) of
Payment of Wages Act an employee
drawing more than Rs.1600/- per month
cannot make any claim under the said
Act. Not only the claimed per month
wages but even the per month wages
actually paid to respondent No.2 were
more than Rs.1600/-
Case law discussed:
2006 (109) FLR 1101, 1992 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C.
1472, 2008 AIR SCW 7233, AIR 2006 SC 1581,
2007 (113) FLR 50 : 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC),
2006 (10) SCC 211.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Respondent No.2, Arun Kumar
was an employee of petitioner school. His
services were terminated on 31.03.2001.
Thereafter, on 23.06.2004, he filed an
application before Prescribed Authority
under Payment of Wages Act, 1936,
which was registered as P.W.A. Case
No.60 of 2004. In the said application, he
claimed that from 13.04.1991, he was
appointed as O.S.D. in the petitioner
school and he was paid less wages than
the wages required to be paid in
accordance with the recommendations of
V Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.04.1996. It
was stated that the difference came to
Rs.6,75,918/- (about Rs.6,80,000/-). Ten
times compensation was also claimed.

3. It has been held in U.P. Basic
Parishad, Allahabad Vs. Prescribed
Authority under Payment of Wages
Act, 2006 (109) FLR 1101 and R.D.S.O.
Basic School Vs. Prescribed Authority,
1992 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1472 that Payment
of Wages Act, 1936 is not applicable to
educational institutions.

4. Through order dated 20.12.2004,
Prescribed Authority under Payment of
Wages Act condoned the delay. The only
ground mentioned in the said order for
condoning the delay was that since
September,
2001
till
March,
2004,
respondent No.2 gave several applications
to the management. This is absolutely no
ground for condoning the delay. In any
case for delay since 1996 till 2001 when
services
of
respondent
No.2
were
terminated, there was absolutely no
explanation.
Against
order
dated
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

20.12.2004, appeal was filed, which was
dismissed by District Judge Bijnore on
15.02.2005. I find that both the orders are
utterly illegal as neither any ground for
delay was taken nor any finding was
recorded. The Supreme Court in the
following authorities has held that filing
repeated representations is no ground to
condone the delay and it cannot keep a
course of action alive.

1. C. Jocob Vs. Director of Geology
& Mining, 2008 AIR SCW 7233
2. AIR 2006 SC 1581 "Karnataka
Power
Corporation
Ltd.
v.
K.Thangappan"

5. Ultimately, Prescribed Authority
under Payment of Wages Act, 1936
allowed the claim of respondent No.2
through order dated 25.03.2006 holding
that from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001
respondent No.2 is entitled to salary in
accordance with the V Pay Commission
amounting to about Rs.2,70,000/- (for this
period about Rs.2,40,000/- were paid).
Seven times of the said amount, i.e.
Rs.18,85,429/- was imposed as damages.
Total amount directed to be paid came to
Rs.21,54,776/-. This writ petition is
directed against orders dated 20.12.2004
and 25.03.2006.

6. Recommendations of V Pay
Commission when accepted by the
Government
are
applicable
upon
government employees. They are not
applicable
on
privately
managed
educational institutions.

7. Disputed question of entitlement
to a particular pay or pay scale cannot be
decided in proceedings under Payment of
Wages Act. The same principle which
applies to applications under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act applies to
Payment of Wages Act. It has repeatedly
been held by the Supreme Court that there
cannot be any adjudication under Section
33-C(2) of I.D. Act. In this regard,
reference may be made to the authority
reported in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari
Bank Ltd. Vs. Additional Labour
Court, Commissioner, 2007 (113) FLR
50 : 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC). In
U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Virendra Bhandari,
2006 (10) SCC 211, it has been held that
salary in terms of recommendations of
Pay Commission cannot be recovered
through proceedings under Section 33C(2).

8. Moreover by virtue of Section
1(6) of Payment of Wages Act an
employee drawing more than Rs.1600/-
per month cannot make any claim under
the said Act. Not only the claimed per
month wages but even the per month
wages actually paid to respondent No.2
were more than Rs.1600/-

9. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.35450 of
2008

Krishna Pal

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan