# BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD v. JAGAN NATH PANDURANG AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 929
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-03-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1968
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam, I. D. DuA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bombay-gas-co-ltd-v-jagan-nath-pandurang-and-ors-5636
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Constitution of India,
1950-Article
133( 1)(b)-$cope-Appeals
-Certificate to dppoeal to Supreme Court.
In order to attract article 133(1)(b) the essential requirement is
that there must be involved in the appeal to this Court a claim or question
respecting property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000/- in addition
to or other than the subject matter 0f the dispute; if there i9 no question
or claim raised respecting property other •.han the subject matter, then,
clause (a) of article 13 3 will apply. Adding future interest or possible
further claims to the original value of the subject matter till the date
of the judgment of the High Court and which items are not the subject
of consideration by the High Court .will not enable a party to plead that
the claim so calculated exceeds Rs. 20,000. {~40 OJ
The respondent had filed applications under the 'Payment of Wages
Act 1948, claiming overtime wages for the period 1957 to 1958 and
wages for weekly off days for the period 1962 to 19·63.
Against the
judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the appellate
authority holding the claim as time barred, the appellants filled appeal
to this C(}urt on the basis of a certificate issued by the High Court under
article 133 (l ){b). In its application before the High Court the appellant
had prayed for the grant of a certificate that the
amount or value of
the subject matter before all the authorities, in the appeals, as well as
in the High Court and still in dispute in the proposed appeal to this
Court was Rs. 20,000/- and upwards, and, in the alternative on the
~round that the c~e was fit one for appeal to this Court. On the basis
of the claims made by the workmen as overtime wages and weakly off
days wa~s for the particular periods, the appellant had calculated at
the same rate for subsequent periods till the judgment of the High Court
and claimed that the amount or value in dispute in appeal to this Court
was ove-r Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant had also urged that it would have
to meet in future also claims from its workmen and, as such, it will
have to face a recurring IiabiHty. On this basis the apPellant had raised
the plea that the judgment of the High Court involved directly or in~
directly a claim or a question in respect of prc>perty of the value of
Rs. 20,000/- and more.
The respondents moved this Court for revocation of the Certificate.
'Illey urged that what weighed with the High Court ·'for granting a ce-rtificate under article 133 (1 )(b) was the circumstance that the nature cf
the demands by the workmen were such as they wete l'Jcurring claim
arising in the future also and as such the final
judgment and
order
of the High Court involved , directly or indirectly a claim
respecting
property of the value not less than Rs. 20,000/. and that this view of
the High Court was erroneous.
HELD :that the certificate issued by the. High Court under article
133 ( 1) (b) was not proper and valid and hence the appeal was unsu~
tainable.
·
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
(1972} 3 S.C.IL
(i) The High Court bas not given any ipdication as to bow it issued
the certificate under article 133(1)(b): it is clear that it did not grant
the certifkat.e on the claim made by the appellant, under clause (a) or
clause (c) of article 133(1), [937 Al
(ii) In view of the fact that the High Court granted the certificate
under .article 13 3 (1 )(b) , it has to be presumed that it has accepted the
appellant's plea that a certificate could be granted under the clause
when there is a recurring liability, which, if calculated 'for
subsequent
years, will be Rs. 20;000; .. or more. {1937 CD]
(iii) But, the present case is not one where the decision of the High·
Court, apart from dealing with. the subject matter in dispute before it,
has the effect cJf affecting. the rights of the appellant regarding other
properties, including money. The judgment of. the High Court bas. only
adjudicated upon the subject matter of the specified claim of the work~
men which was

## Text

_Characters 0–39,703 of 53,318. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39703 for what follows._

B
·C
D
E
F
G
J
929
BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD.
v.
JAGAN NATH PANDURANG AND ORS.
March 22, 1972
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DuA, JJ.]
Constitution of India,
1950-Article
133( 1)(b)-$cope-Appeals
-Certificate to dppoeal to Supreme Court.
In order to attract article 133(1)(b) the essential requirement is
that there must be involved in the appeal to this Court a claim or question
respecting property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000/- in addition
to or other than the subject matter 0f the dispute; if there i9 no question
or claim raised respecting property other •.han the subject matter, then,
clause (a) of article 13 3 will apply. Adding future interest or possible
further claims to the original value of the subject matter till the date
of the judgment of the High Court and which items are not the subject
of consideration by the High Court .will not enable a party to plead that
the claim so calculated exceeds Rs. 20,000. {~40 OJ
The respondent had filed applications under the 'Payment of Wages
Act 1948, claiming overtime wages for the period 1957 to 1958 and
wages for weekly off days for the period 1962 to 19·63.
Against the
judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the appellate
authority holding the claim as time barred, the appellants filled appeal
to this C(}urt on the basis of a certificate issued by the High Court under
article 133 (l ){b). In its application before the High Court the appellant
had prayed for the grant of a certificate that the
amount or value of
the subject matter before all the authorities, in the appeals, as well as
in the High Court and still in dispute in the proposed appeal to this
Court was Rs. 20,000/- and upwards, and, in the alternative on the
~round that the c~e was fit one for appeal to this Court. On the basis
of the claims made by the workmen as overtime wages and weakly off
days wa~s for the particular periods, the appellant had calculated at
the same rate for subsequent periods till the judgment of the High Court
and claimed that the amount or value in dispute in appeal to this Court
was ove-r Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant had also urged that it would have
to meet in future also claims from its workmen and, as such, it will
have to face a recurring IiabiHty. On this basis the apPellant had raised
the plea that the judgment of the High Court involved directly or in~
directly a claim or a question in respect of prc>perty of the value of
Rs. 20,000/- and more.
The respondents moved this Court for revocation of the Certificate.
'Illey urged that what weighed with the High Court ·'for granting a ce-rtificate under article 133 (1 )(b) was the circumstance that the nature cf
the demands by the workmen were such as they wete l'Jcurring claim
arising in the future also and as such the final
judgment and
order
of the High Court involved , directly or indirectly a claim
respecting
property of the value not less than Rs. 20,000/. and that this view of
the High Court was erroneous.
HELD :that the certificate issued by the. High Court under article
133 ( 1) (b) was not proper and valid and hence the appeal was unsu~
tainable.
·
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
(1972} 3 S.C.IL
(i) The High Court bas not given any ipdication as to bow it issued
the certificate under article 133(1)(b): it is clear that it did not grant
the certifkat.e on the claim made by the appellant, under clause (a) or
clause (c) of article 133(1), [937 Al
(ii) In view of the fact that the High Court granted the certificate
under .article 13 3 (1 )(b) , it has to be presumed that it has accepted the
appellant's plea that a certificate could be granted under the clause
when there is a recurring liability, which, if calculated 'for
subsequent
years, will be Rs. 20;000; .. or more. {1937 CD]
(iii) But, the present case is not one where the decision of the High·
Court, apart from dealing with. the subject matter in dispute before it,
has the effect cJf affecting. the rights of the appellant regarding other
properties, including money. The judgment of. the High Court bas. only
adjudicated upon the subject matter of the specified claim of the work~
men which was for a particular period. The 'judgment does not involve
directly or indirectly, 3-?art . from the subject matter of the writ petition,
any claim or question respecting property or money of the value of
Rs. 20,000/~ and more.
The appellant
was not entitled to notionally
add, to the- . amount originally claimed by the workmen for particular
periods any further AUnOUiltSI on the ground that they must be ~nsidered
to have accrued due to the workmen till the date of the judgment of
the High Court. (.945 E, 946 E]
(:haitarmal v. M/s. Pannallal Chandulal, [19651 2 S.C.R. 751, applied'.
A. V. Subramania Ayyar v. Sellammal, I.L. R. 39 Madras 843,
Meghji Lakhamshi an'd Brothers v. Furniture Workshop, £19541 Appeals
Cases 80; Smt. Rajah Kishore Devigaru v. Bhaskara Gouta Chorani and
others, A. I. R. 1960 A. P. 286; Commissioner oJ Income-tax; Madras v.
S. L. Mathias, A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 352; G. Appuswamy Chettiar and
another v. R. Sarangapani Chettiar and orhers, [1965] (1) l.LR.
Mad.
361: Moti Chand and others v. Ganga Parshad Singh and another, 29
Indian Appeals 40 and Surapati Roy and others v. Ram Narayan Mukherji and others, 50 LA. 155, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 158 of
1968.
.
.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated February 6, 1967
of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1987
of .1965.
.
WITH
Civil Misce.l!ilneous ~eiition No. 1300 of 1972.
B.
D
E
(Application by the Respondemts for revocation of certificate
granted by the High Court.)
G
Soil Sorabji, K. D. Mehta, P. C. Bhariari and 0 .. C. Mathur
for the appellant.
M. C. Bhandare, Sunanda Bhandare and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5,' 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 95, 96,
98. 100, 101 to 104 a~d 108.
.
The.Judgment of the,Court was delivered by
H
Vaidtalingam, J.
T~is ~ppeal~ on certificate, by the Bombay
Gas· Co. Ltd., is directed against the judgment and order dated
A
8
BOMBAY GAS CO. v. JAGAN NATH (Vaidia/ingam, J.) . 931
February 6, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1987 of 1965.
Th~ High Court set aside the decision
of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, in Payment of Wages Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1962 and remanded the 'proceedings to
the Aqditional Authority for calculating and awarding over-time
wages that may be due to the responden~· Nos. 1 to 80 herein.
The High Court further reversed the decision of the Court of Small
Causes, Bombay, in Payment of Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963
and restored the orders passed by the Third Additional Authority
in favour of the respondents Nos. 81 to 118 herein, regarding their
right to get wages for weekly off days. C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972
is an application filed ~Y the respondents in the civil appeal for
C
revoking the certificate for leave to appeal to this Court granted
by the High Court to t;Qe appellant herein.
We will-briefly state the circumstances under which the appeal
has co111.e to this c;::ourt on certificate : The respondents Nos. I to
14 who \\ere employed under the appellant as Syphon Pumpers
filed on March 3, 1958 before the Additional Authority 14 apD
plicatioris under s. 15-of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter
to be referred as the Act) claiming over-time wages for the period
February 1957 to January, 1958. On the same date the respondents Nos. 15 to 80, wf.lo were employed under the appellant as
Mains workers filed before the same Authority 66 applications
claiming over-time wages for the same period.
The claim was
E
substantially based under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and
Establishments ACt, 1948 {hereinafter to be referred as tihe Establishments Act). The appellant raised two grounds of defence: (a)
The claims were barr~ by the Award, Part 1I of the Industrial
Tribunal, Bombay dated March 30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No ..
54 of 1949; and (b). l'he applicants were not workmen covered
by the Establishments Act. On October 13, 1962, the Additional
F · Authority held that the Award, referred to, by t·he Company was
no bar to the said employees claiming over-time wages.
But the
said Authority accept~ the con~tion of the Company that the
applicants are not cover~ by the Esta~lishments Act, which gives
them the benefit of weekJy off days with wa~es under s. 18(3 ). In
this view the applications filed by the respondentls Nos. 1 to 80
G
herein were dismissed. J'he said applicants filed before the: Court ·
of Small Causes. Bombay, ·which was the J\.ppellate Authority, ·
Payme11t of Wages Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 1962 challenging
the decision dated OctQber 13, 1962 of the. Additional Authoricy,
dismissing their applications.
·
H
During the years 1962-63, the respondents Nos. 81 to 118
herein, in the Civil Aj:>peal filed 38 ·applications before. the. Third
Additional Authority under s. 15 of the Act claiming wages, for
weekly . off. days.
Th~ said respondents were working ¥t Mains,
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 s.c.R.
Heating Appliances and Fitting Departments of the appellant.
A
ii.ere again, the basis of the claim was under the provisions of the
·Establishments Act. The appellant raised the same two defences
as in respect of the claim for overtime wages. · The Third Addi~
tional Authority, by its judgment dated April 26, 1963, held that
the Award, Part II of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dated
March 30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949 is no bar to B
entertain the appli~ations of the said employees. The said authority
further held that the district office in which the said applicants
were employed is a "Commercial Establishment" under the Establishments Act and as such they were entitled to wage}. for weekly
off days under s. 18(3) of the said Act. Accordingly, the said
authority directed the appellant to pay the amounts mentioned in
C
the judgment to respondents Nos. 81 ro 118 and also to pay certain amount by way of cgmpensation. The appellant filed Payment
of Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963 before the Court of Small Causes,
Bombay, which was the Appellate Authority, challenging the decision of the Third Additlional Authority dated April 26, 1963 re.·
garding payment of wages for weekly off days.
All the three appals_, namely, Payment of Wages Appeals Nos.
162 and 163 of 1962 telating to over-time wages, filed by the res-
'
portdents Nos. 1 to 80, and Payment of Wages Appeal No. 61
D
of 1963 filed by the Company relating to wages for weekly off days
decreased to respondent~ Nos. 81 to 118 were heard together and
disposed of by a common judgment dated February 11, 1965 by
E
the Appellate Authority, the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It
was held that the claims of all the workmen for over-time wages
and wages for weekly off days were barred by the Award, Part II
dated March 30, 1950 _of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949 and that the said award was still in
force and binding on the parties.
Accordingly, the Payment of
Wages Appeals ~os. 162 and 163 of 1962 were dismissed and F
Payment of Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963. was allowed. Theresult was that the apQ!ications filed by the employees before the
Additional Authority and the Third Additional Authority stood
dismissed.
It must, however, 1:le stated that though the Appellate Authority,
G
the Court of Small Causes, Bombay held that the claims of all the
workmen, both for over-time wages and weekly off days wages were
barred by the Award, nevertheless it also considered the questlion
whether the workmen are employed in a "Commercial Establishment'' so as to claim relief under the Establishments Act.
The
Appellat~ Author.ity. held that the district office of the Company H
tJ:ough sJtu.ated wtthm the compound ?f the factory is a "Commer- .
cu'll Estabhshment" under the Estabbshments. Act. Accordingly,
the. Court of Small Causes agreed with the finding of the Third
A
B
•
F
H
BOMBAY GAS CO, V. JAGAN NATH (Vaidia/ingam, J.)
933
Additional Authority that the workmen were governed by the provisions of the Establishments Act and as such are entitled to the
benefit conferred on them by that Act. However, in view of the
fact that the claims of all the workmen were held to be barred in
view of the award m
Ref~ence (IT) No. 54 of 1949, the workmen's
appeals were dismissed and the appeal filed by the Company was
allowed.
A~ stated earlier, the decision of the Court of Small Causes
resulted in the dismissa~ of all the applications filed by the workmen
before both the Additional Authority and the Third Additional
Authority.
All the 118 workmen filed before the Bombay High Court,
Special Civil Applicatiq_n, No. 1987 of 1965 under Arts. 226 and
227 of the Constitution for quashing the judgment of the Court ot
Small Causes, Bombay; dated February 11, 1965. By its judg·
ment and order dated February 6, 1967, the High Court held that
neither the claim of the respondents Nos. 1 to 80 for over-time
wages, nor the claim of the respondents Nos. 81 to 118 for wages
for w~kly off days Wa§ barred by the Award, Part II, dated March
30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949. So far as the respond·
ents Nos. 1 to 80 were concerned, the High Court! has set aside
the judgment of t.Qe Court of Small Causes, BombayJ as well as the
order dated October· 13, 1962 of the Additional Authority and
remanded their appl~cations to the latter for -ascertaining and
decreasing the amount _of over-time wages that may be due to them.
Regarding the respondents Nos. 81 to 118, the High Court has set
aside the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, and
restored tlie order dated April 26, 1963 of the Third Additional
Authority recognising their claim for wages for weekly off days.
It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that the Company
did not challenge the finding of the Court of Small Causes that the
workmen are employed jn a "Commercial Estab1ishment" and as
such are entitled to the benefitS of the provisions of the Establish·
ments Act. The High Court has also stated that the reason given
by the counsel appearing for the Company for not challenging that
:fincling was 11h.at it was not open to the Company, which was a
respondent in the writ petition to ·challenge the said finding in those
proceedings. Therefore, 'the High Court has adjudicated upon the
only question whether the Award bars the claims of the workmen
I$ held by the Court -~ Stnall Causes. On this point, as pointed
out~ earlier, the High Court disagreed with the decision of the Coun
of Small Causes.
the appellant filed on April 6, 1967 in the High Court Appli~
caUOit No. 869 of 1967 praying for the grant of a certificate of
fi~~~ to enable it to appeal to this Court In the applicatiOn. of the
appellant, after setting out the nature of the applications filed before
934
SUPREME cOURT REI'ORTS
(1972) ~ S.C.R..
Add't' al and Third Additional Authoriti:s, the
amount~; A
the
I 1on
· ·
f th
d tw A th · ·
claimed by the workmen, . the decision o
e sa1
o
u ontJes
11 as the judgmen~ and order of the Court of Small Causes,.
~dwfue High Court, it was stated ~a~ th~ amount or v~ue of the
subject matter before all the Authontles, m ~e appeals, as well as
m the Hioh Court and still in dispute in the prop,osed appeal to this
Court, was Rs. 20,000 !l:lld upwards. It ~
further ~tated ~at in B
any event the case is a fit one for appeal to ~s Court. Accordmgly,
the appellant prayed for the grant of ~ certifi~ate ~~ the am~un_t or
value of the subject matter irl the srud Spec1at C1vil Applicauon,
applications before the Additional and Third Additional Authorities, in the appeals before the Court of Small Causes and in dispute
in the proposed appeal to-this Court was.Rs. 20,0~ and upwards
or. in the· alternative oa .the ground that the case IS a fit one for C.
appeal to this Court.
· It 'will be seen, that thbugh the appellant did not specify under
which clause of Art: 133(1) the certificate was asked for, neverth~
less a Pe-rusal of tJ:le.avcijnents made in the Petition and the prayers
made therein show that the appellant was asking for a certificate p
under clauses (a) and, or (c) of Art. 133(1). The High Court after
hearing all parties, by i1s order dated Octpber 19, 1967 directed a
certificate to issue under .Art. 133(l)(b) of.the Constitution. On
the basis of the said ce_ttifica~. th~ petition of. appeal has been lodg.:.
ed. by the appellant in this_ Co~
.. 6n December 16, 1967.
The respondent bas.filed C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972 requesting E
this Court to revoke th~ certifieate gtanted to ihe appellant by the
High <;:ourt on October 19·, 1967. If the c<;tificate is re-voked.
that will result in our holding that the appeal is not compet.en~.
Hence we will deal with the application for revocation of the certificate.
·
In the affidavit filed in support of the application for revocation,
Itt fo~lowi.ng ~averments are· rna~ i The appeal refers to two sets
of. ~~
which are separate and independent of each otherODCJ for over-time wages -and the other for wages for weeklv off
days:···111e applications· in respect of these two different claims .
~
filed by the concerned workmen before two different Autht>-
ntsn. u~r the Act and were also disposed of separately by those G
A\ltbontu:s. · Separate appeals were preferred before the· Court of .
Small Causes. . Though a common judgment was delive-red by the
~oarN>f Small Causes, the two sets of cla.ims have been dealt with .
mdc::pende~tly. and ~parutcly in the: judi!ment. as there were sepa~ .
rate and d1ffcrent appeals. The claim for w~kly off days· wages
com~ oaJy t£1,Rs. 661~ and that was the value of the subject H
matter .before the Thud .Additional Authority and in: the apPeal
bdure the! .C~rt of Small Caus~ as wen p. in tho wnt petition
bdore· the H1gh CoUrt. Tho same is-. the- value of tho..suhjed
BOMBAY GAS co. v. ·JAGAN NATH CV.aidialingam, J.)
935
A matter of the appeal to this Court. The value of the subjec~ mattoc
of the' claim in: respect of over-tlime wages was only Rs. 10660
before the Additional Authority and in the appeals before the·
Court of Small Causes, i!). the High Court, as well as in the appeal .
before this Court! Th.e value of the subject matter of neither of
the· two separate and distinct claims is Rs. 20,000; and even · if
B both the claims.are added, tqe value of the subject matter is less
than Rs. 20,000. lt·was, in view of this circumstance, that the
High Court did n:ot grant a ce~tificate under Art.133(1)(a).
The
High Court diq not consider the case as a fit one for appeal to this
Court, and hence no <;:er;tificate was granted under Art.133(1)(c).
· What has weighed with the High Court in granting a certificate
under Art.133(1)(b} is the circumstance that the nature of- the
C. demands made by the workmen were such that they ~e recuning
claims arising in the future also and as such the final \udgment
and order in the writ petition involve directly .or indirectly a claim
respecting property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000. This:
view of the High Couri is erroneous and contrary to the decisions
of this Court~d as such the grant ofcertificate by the High Court
D
is- erroneQus.
Along with the application, the respondents havejiled a stat-·
ment to show that the value of the subject matter of the
~laim re-·
garding over-time wages does not exceed Rs. 1Q660.
At this
stage it may be mentioned that according to the appellant this
schedule deals only with the claims made by the Mains workers and'
E it does not include the amount cJaimed by the 14 Syphon Pumpers.
On behalf of the am_>ellant, an affidavit has been filr-<1 opposing
the application for revocation of the certificate.
In this affidavit
the averments made ar~ as follows. : Though the appeal has beenpending in this Court f()r a considerable time, llhe respondents have·
F
filed the application for revocation of- the certificate only when
the appeal was about to be heard. It is pointed out that the res-·
pondents opposed before the High Coun the application for grant
of certificate .on the groWJ,d:that the. am.egate 'of all claw..& l'Ut
together ;amounts only tn''!Rs,.17678.80 P,,:·:~d hence .no certifi.
cate s&o.uldbe granted .... ,·';f.he;appellant had:· filed a rejoinder giving
details :regarding the: vahio·-·Of·: the subject~ matter of (he appeal
G to this Coutt.
As per ·the· particulars given· therein, :the .value :of
the subjeCt niatter of the·entire claim in ~.spect of over..,time:wages,
weekly'off.days wages~arul.compensation. iS of the .. value' of
Rs,.26822.<W.
Therefui~·,the ainount·or ·value of.the subject
matter in dispute in the ··court of the. firSt insra.nce and still in dis-·
pute.in the appeal is Rs: 26822.09, w)lichis·well over the.prescribH
ed limit· of: .. Rs.: 20,000. ·.·:The claim, for weel<ly off days wages at
the rate. claimed by the~:workmen on the date ~of the judgment or
the ·High ,(OOuh,. ·that i.~ February.6, ·l96l.became·.crystalised in,
tbe·:~ate .amorin• of;over Rs. 30~000. : · :Sitiillar1y, ·the' claim:
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
for over time wages as a result, and effect or the judgmeht of the
A
High Court, as on the date of the decision in the writ petition, also
exceeds the sum of Rs. 20,000.
The respondents raised a contrcr
versy regarding the all!..OUnt or· value of the subject matter in dis·
pute before the High Court in application·No. 869 of 1967.
But,
inasmuch as the recurring claims of both weekly off days wages
and over~time wages, at the time of the High Court's judgment in
B
the writ J}etition on February 6, 1967, had crystalised into amounts
exceeding Rs. 20,000, __ the High Court issued the certificate under
Art: 13 3 ( 1 )(b) and that the certificate so issued under the said
Article is perfectly valid;
·We have set out faJrly elaborately the claim made by the respondents in C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972 for revoking the certificate c
granted by the High Court as well as- the defence pleaded by the
appellant to that. appij~ation. In itfS application before the High
Court, the appellant did not specify under what clause of Art.
133 (1) the certificate was prayed for. But froni the material aver·
ment!l made by .the appellant in its application before the High
Court for grant of certificate, it is to be gathered that the prayer
J)
was substantially on tho ground that the amount or value of the
subject matter of the applications befo~ the' Payment of Wages
Authorities, in the appeals before the Court of Small Causes, in
the writ petition before the High Court and still in dispute in the
proposed appeal to this Court was Rs. 20,000/ · and upwards ..
This prayer will bring the applicaWm under Art. 13 3 (1 ) (a).
In the alternative, the certificate was prayed for on the ground
.E
that the case is fit one for appeal to this Court. This prayer will
eome under Art. 133(l)(c). The request of the appellant for
grant of certificate on the above basis was opposed .by the respondents herein on the ground that the amount or value of the subject
matter before all the Authorities, the Court of Small Causes, the
High Court and in dispute in the proposed appeal before this Court :t
was far below Rs. 20,000/. and as such the matter does not come
under Art. 133(1)(a). It was also averred that. there w:as no
substantial question of law of any great importance arose for consideration so as· to attract Art. 13 3 ( 1 )(c).
After givjng .details
l'Cgarding the nature of the claims made by the workmen, bo~h as
over-time wages and weekly off· days wages, it was stated that !he
G
-claim 'fell far short of the sum of Rs. 20,000/ ·.
As the H1gh
Court had only adjudicated upon that claim in the wri~ petition.
the respondents pleaded ·th~t the judgment of the High Court doe~
not involve directly or. indirectly any claim ~r question respecting
property of the value of .Rs. 20,000/ • or more.
-
The High Court on· October 19, 1967 granted the ceiti&ate
1n tht following terms .:
_
·
-
"Cer~ to lSsue under Att. 135 ( i)(b) of the"C<:m!
II
. stitutiQtt. Costs in the Supreme Court appeal." ' · · ·
BOMBAY GAS co. v. JAGAN NATH (Vaidialingam, 1.) 937-·
/
'
A
From the above it )Vill be seen that the High Col!rt has not
giVen any indication as to how it issued the certificate under Art.
l33(1)(b). But one thing is clear that it did not grant the certi~
ncate on the basis of th~ claim made by the appellant either under
~1. (a) or cl. (c) of Art. 133(1). On the basis of the claims made
by the workmen as over-time wages and weekly off days wages for
B the particular periods, the app~llant had calculated at the same rate
for even subsequent periods till the qate of the judgment of the
High Court and claimed that the amount or value in dispute in
appeal to this Court is over Rs. 26822.09 p.
The....appellant had
also raised a point in its further affidavit before the High Court
that it will have to meet in future also claims from its workmen
C and as such it will have to face a recurring liability.
On this
basis the appellant has raised a plea t~at the judgment of the High
Court involves directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting
property of the value of Rs. 20,000/ - and more. In view of the
fact that the High Court has granted the certificate under Art.
133(1)(b), it has to be presumed that it has accepted the appelHmt's
plea that a certificate could be~ granted under the said clause when
0
there is a recurring liability, which, if calculated for subsequent
years will be at least Rs. 20,000/- and more. The question is
whether under circumstance& the certificate granted under Art.
133(1)(b) by the Hig,h-Court,, is proper and valid.
·
It is significant to note that in paragraph 7 of ·the petitl.on of
E appeal filed in this Court, the appellant has stat~d that it is Jil)t
possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter of dispute
in the appeal. Accordingly, it has paid. only a fued court fee of
Rs. 250/- as per the rules.
In the claim statement filed by the
appellant before the High Court, it has stated t~at Rs. 6675.84 is
claimed as weekly off wages bv t:lJ.e respondents Nos. 80 to 11~
and a sum of Rs. 18221.25 is claimed by the respondents Nos. 1
F to 80 as over-time wages.. Thesv two different claims were· not
consolidated before the Authorities because the claim· for weekly
off wages was dealt with by the Third Additional Authority and
the claim for over-time wages. w~s dealt y.rith by the Additional
Authority. ·
G
·According to the Union the claim for ov~r-time wages dC>es not
exceed Rs. 10660/-. But it is not neooss~ for us to go furthe~
into this aspect as Art.· 133(1)(a) is out of the picture ..
.
.
'
The appellant, relying on the calculat~(>n . filed by it bef9re the
High Court, has further stated in its affidavit dated Febrqary 18,
H
1972, tiled in opposition to tn~ application for revocation, that
on thtl basi~ of the elaim for weekly Qft wages in the sum. of
Rs. 6675;84 p,. for one y~ar. if cal<;ula,t~a for Jbe su~eq~nt years
upto February 6, 1967-, tm date of tiw. judgment of the Htgb. Co-qrt ..
93S
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. (197'2J·3·S.C.R.
the amount will aggragate nearly Rs. 30,000/-. S'unilarly';in resA
pect. of over-time wage§, on. the basis. of the .claim made· by tl_ie
workmen, if calculated upto February 6, 1967, the amount Will
exceed the sum of Rs. 20,000./-.. It will be seen that if the claims
made before each of .the_Aut~orities for the particular periods aloj}e
are taken into account, the total cla!ms Will be less than Rs. 20,000/-.
It is really that claim ~h~ch was the ·subject of consideration by the
B
High Court in the writ petit,ion. Is it open to. the appellant to add
to the original claim made by the workmen, the further amount
calculated by it till the .date of the judgment of ~e High Court:
·and establish that as the total amount so arrived at is not less than
Rs. 20,000/-, Art. 133(l)(b) can be invoked on the ground that
the judgment of the High Court directly or indirectly involves a c
claim in respect of property of the value of not 1ess than
Rs. 20,000 1-?
Even on the basis of the valuation worked out by the appellant,
it is seen that the claim for over-time wages which was filed befor:e
the Additional Authority was valued only at Rs, 18221.25 p. as
per the amended claim at 1 J times of wages, though according to
the respondents the amo_gnt of claiin does not exceed Rs. 10660/-.
Similarly, the claim for weekly off wages filed by another set, of·
workmen before the Third Additional Authority, even ·as per the
appellant's calculation was only Rs~ 6675.a4 p.
The claim for
over-time wages and weekly off wages, each of them takes separately
does not exceed Rs. 20,000/-.
Though the appeals against the
decision of the two Authorities were filed before the Court of Small
Causes, it is to be not~ that separate appeals were filed by different
workmen and the appellant in r~_pect of these two different categories of claims. Though the Court of Small Causes disposed of
D
E
all the appeals by a eommon judgment, nevertheless the claim in
respect of over-time wap;es -was dealt with apart and different from y
the. claim for weekly off wages.
Even before the High Court,
though one writ petitiQn. was tiled by all the workmen,-the· claims
un:der two different headS for -OVer time wageS and weekly off wages
wer~. dealt with ~parately by the .High .Court. It is not as if that
the reasons given by the High Court for upholding the claims for
ov~ -time wages automatically resulted in the allowing of the claim
for_ weekly off wages al~o. In fact entirely different considerations
G
apply for the two different sets of claims and that has been kept
in view by the High Court. Though, ultimately, the High Court
has delivered only a common judgment,· nevertheless the decision
relat~ to two differen(sets of claims each having nothing in common with the other. . ~'Therefore, it was not open f.o the appellant
to ask this Court to prpceed on the basis that there was only one
single· :l!ld common claim dealt with by the 'High Court in itS j'udg~
ment. Therefore, there was no question of any consolidation of
all the claims before the High Court .. ·· In this view it Wilfbe seen
H
BOMBAY GAS CO. V • .JAGAN NATH (Vaidialingam, J.)
939
A
that even according to ~e. calculations made by the appellant, the
value of the subject m~t4:r of the ch:i.im with respect to over-time
wages cail. only be the.sru.ne as was before the· Additional Authority,
namely, Rs. 18221.25 p: which is less than Rs. ~0,000/-. ·Similarly, the amount or value of tl}e claim·which was adjudicated upon
by the. High Court in respect of weekly off wages was also of the
B
same value as Rs. 6675.84 p. as ·was the case before the Third
Additional Authority, which-d"aim is also less than Rs; 20,000/-.
Therefore, considering the matter from this point of . view, it is
clear that the value of tihe subject matter of the claim before the
High Court in resp~t· of each of these matters was less: than
Rs. 20,000/-.
C
The appellant, as mentioned earlier, has calculated at the same
rate as cJaimed for over-time wages and weekly wages. for subsequent years upto the date of the _judgment of the High Court and
has stated that so calculated the amount or value of the subject
matter of the claim relating-- to weekly off
wage~ exceeds
Rs. 30,000/-. Similarly, the amount or value of the subject matter
D
of the claim of over-time wages exceeds ~s. 20,000/- and hence
it is stated that the judgment of the High Court involves· d.iNctly
or indirectly a· claim o_r question respecting property of the value
•
of Rs. 20,000/- and more ..
E
Mr. M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the respondeqts,. in
support of the application filed for revocation of the certificate ha~
urged that before the H_igh Court there was no claim or question
arising for consideration excepting the subject nl.atter of over-time
wages and weekly off wages claim for a particular period by · the
workmen. No claim for any further period has been made by
them; nor did it arise fo-r consideration before either the Authori-
. ties, the Court of Small Causes. or the High ~ourt. Nor does such
F a claim arise for consideration in the appeal to this CQ].lrt. Therefore, he pointed out that thy judgJI}enu of the High Court does not
either, d_itectJ y or indirectly mv<;>lve any ~Iaim apart froin -wa.at. was
the ·sub.fect~tter of dispute_. between the p)ltties: ~e High C¢-qrt
not having granted the ~ertificate under A.tt.: · 133(1)(a)~ it foHoWs
that the amount or val~ of the subject matter of the dispute ·befOre
it or on appeal to thts Court WliS not Rs~ 20,000/- or".jti~:V~.
G Clause (c) of Art. 133(1) also stands excluded as~ High .Court
has not granted the certifitate on the ground that the· ca~eds' a
fit one for appeal to this Court, and as·Mr. Sorabji, learned coill,iiei
for the ·apj)ellant, has represented that h~ is' not relYing bri tfrat
.clause. In order to attract Art. 133(1)(b), under which ~:certiH
. ficate has been granted,.the essential req~ment is that th~re must
be inv9Iv~ in the appeal to this Cou~ a.' ~laim or questi()n resPecting property of the value of not less tba~(Rs; 20,000/- m·iufruti~
to or other than Jhe subject matter of the ·dispute. .In .lflis ·ease
this conditiOn is not satisfied.
·: · ·
·
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] ~ S.C.R.
In support of the alx:>Ve proposition, Mr. Bhandare, referred us
A
to the decision of this Court in Chhitarmal v. M/ s Shah Pannalal
Chandulal (1). It is laid down in that decision as follows. :
"The variation in the language used in cls. (a) and
(b) of Art. 133 pointedly Jllghlights the conditions which
attract the application of the two clauses. Under cl. (a)
what is decisive is the amount or value of the subject-!
matter in the court of the first ins~ance and "still in dispute" in appeal to the Supreme Court : under cl. (b) it
is the amount or value of the property respecting which
a claim or question is involved in the judgment sought
to be appealed from.
The expression . "property" is not
defined in the Code, but having regard to the use of the
expression "amount" it would apparently include money.
But the property respecting which the claim or question
arises must be property in addition to or other than the
subject-matter of the dispute. If in a proposed appeal
there is no ciaim or question raised respecting property
other than the subject-matter, cl. (a) will apply; if there
is mvolved in the appeal a claim or question respecting
property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000/ -
in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute c1. (b) will apply."
·
B
c
D
. From the facts stated in the above decision it is seen that the
appellant therein pleaded on an alternative basis that the claim in
E
the appeal exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. That alternative claim was on
the basis of adding interest at 6% per annum to his original claim
as awarded by the trial court whose decree he wanted 1Jo be restored in the appeal. That again- was rejected on the ground that
the original claim of the appellant therein, which formed the: subject-matter of dispute before the trial court, was itself the subject F
of 9,ispute in the appeal and therefore by adding interest to th~
original claim, it was not open to the appellant to plead that the
valuation in the appeal exceeds Rs. 20,000/
From ·the decision, cited above, the following principles
emerge:
(l) ·In order to attra,ct Art. 133(J)(b) the property
respecting which the claim · or question: arises, m·ust be
property in addition to or other than the subject-matter
of the dispute;
(2) If in the appeal to this Court there is no ques.
tion 9r claim raised respecting the property other than
tl;le sut.>.iect-matter~,. then cl. (a) of Art. 133 (1) wlll apply.
(1) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 751.
H
,
..
•
BOMBAY GAS CO. v. JAGAN NATH ( Vaidia/ingam, f.)
941
A
(3) Adding future interest or possible further claims
to the original value of the subject-matter till the date of
the judgment of the High Court and which items are not
the subjeet of ,consideration by the High Court will not
enable . a party to plead that the claim so calculated
exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. This is not permissible as the adB
dition of imerest or calculation of further possible claims
arc all related only to the original subject-matter, which
is still in dispute.
In A. V. Subramania Ayyar v. Sellammal(i), under s. U <J
of the Code of Civil ~rocedure it was pleaded that though the·
C subject-matter of the dispute in the court of first instanCe was Jess
than Rs. 10,000/-, the final decree of the High Court involved a
claim to property of over Rs. 10,000/- in value. This value at
the relevant time was for purposes of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privv Council. The appellanr. added the mesne protits, which according .to him must be considered to have accrued
subsequent to the date of the original claim made in the suit. So
D
uddiog, the ~ppe.llant therein pleaded that: the decision of the High ·
Court must b.e considered as involving a claim to property of over
Rs. 10,000/~ in value.
Though, if the amount of mesne orofits
wus added the value was over Rs. 10.000 I-, the High Court re.iected
the p!ea on the ground that the claim for mesne profits has not been
awarded by the decree, nor was it the subject matter of dispute in
E
the appeal. It was further held that the decision of the High Court
has not ·affected the rights of the appellant therein in any prooerty
other than the one that was the subject matter in dispute. In this
view, it was held tha~ the judgment of the High Court did not
directly or indirectly involve any question to any prooertv other
than the subject maHer of dispute. On this ground, certificate waS
F
refused.
Mr. Sorabii, learned counsel for t.he appellant, acceoted the
vrincrple that to attract Art. 133(1 )(b) the orooerty, referred to
therein, mc.st be property in addition to or other than the subiect
matter of the dispute. In fact, he cannot but acceot this orinciTl]e
a~ it has been so laid down by this Court in Chhitarmal v. · M 1 s
G
Sh(Jh Panna/a/ Chandulalf~). The counsel did not relv on Art.
133 ( i)(~) or (c) Ior the ouroose of this aoDrat · He nointe-d out
that as laid down by this Court in th~ df>cision, refl"rred to ahoveth~ .expression "property'' in Art. 133(l)(b) would al"o take ;~
claims re!Wrdinl! monev. He pointed our. that t?e aooellant in this
case is oreiudicPd hv th~ jud(Tment of the High Court as it will ha?e
1:1
to face recurrin!! liabilitv in future at the hand~; of its worlrm~n. on
th~ basis of the. clllint~ ~1~~~ bv th.Pm as ove'r-time wa(7~" and ''"'·~lr:ly
olf wages. It IS that h~bthty whtch the appellant will have to face
1, l L.~. 1<J Madras 843.
14-L!O(I Sup Cl/72
(2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 751.
.942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S C R
A
·and wbich llas been imposed upon it to its prejudice by the ,iudgment
of the High Court, that is sou~ht to be got rid of in the ap.peal to
this Court As the recurring liability or cla,1m will be more than
Rs. 20,000/- .the matter squarely falls unaer Art. 133(I)(b) and
the certificate granted by the High Court is correct.
He further
pointed out that it is not necessary that the jud~~uent of the High
Court should directly involve ·othe.r properties, including money.
~
Clause (b) of Art. 133(1) will be attracted even if the judgment
indirectly involves a claim in respect of properly or money of not
le~c; th'ln Rs. 20,000/-. He referred us to the· decision in Meghji
1A1rham~hi anrl Brothers v. Furniture Workshop(l) where the
Judicial Committee had to construe Art. 3(a) of the Eastern African (Appeal to Privv Council) Order in Council, 1951. The
tatter pari of this Article was as follows :
C
. " .. , ...