# The Divisional Engineer, G./.P. Railway v. Mahadeo Raghoo and another

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1353
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955-03-04
- **Bench:** VIVIAN BosE, ]Agannadhadas, Venkatarama Ayyar, Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-divisional-engineer-g-p-railway-v-mahadeo-raghoo-and-another-345
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (IV of 1936), Ss. 5, 7, 15(1)(2)-
Claim for wages due on account of the introduction of upgrading
of persons-Claimant's right to be placed on monthly wages ignoredNo delay in payment of wages or deduction of wages alleged-Authority under the Act-Whether had jurisdiction to decide the complaint
of the applicant.
The second respondent had been an employee of the Central
Railway as a daily rated casual labourer on specified daily wages
since 1941. He continued to receive his wages at the specified rate
until October 1949. In October 1949 he made an application through
an official of the Registered Trade Union-a person permitted by the
authority under sub-section (2) of s. 15 of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936-claiming his wages due in respect of six months from
May to October 1949. The respondent did not allege delay in the
1955
The Divisional
Engineer, G./.P.
Railway
v.
Mahadeo Raghoo
and another
Sinha J.
1955
March 4
1955
A. V. D'Costa
v.
B. C. 'Patel
and another
1354
SUPREME COURT R.E?ORTS
[1955]
payment of ·his wages or deduction _of ,his wages ~n contravent;ion of
the provisions of s. 5 or s. ·7 of Act IV of 1936 respectively. The respondeot alleged that he had been paid his actual wageS' as fixed by
the railv.ray adn1inistration but that after the introduction of the
scheme of upgrading of persons employed under the ·daily wages
scheme, others who ·were· junior to him had been _placed on the
monthly wages scheme whereas his claim to be so placed, had been
ignored and that he had not been ·paid wages oi:i the .~cale to which
he would have been entitled .if he had been placed on the monthly
wages scheme.
Held, per SINHA J. (V1v1AN BosE and VENKATAMM~ AYYAR JJ.
corzcurring,
JAGAN_NADHADAs J. dissenting),
that the respondent's
complaint feJl under the category of potential wages· and the authority appointed under the Act had no jurisdiction .to decide the question of potential wages.
It had the jurisdiction to decide what
actually ·the t_erms of the contract between the parties. were, that is
to say, to· determine the ~c.tual wages.
·
On the case as made on behalf of the· respondent, orders of the
sup·erior officers were. necessary to upgrade him from a daily wage~
earner to a higher cadre.
·rhe authority under the Act has not
bee~ e~mpow.ered -~nder s. :is to
make
such .direction to the
superior officers.
· ·
Per
}AGANNADHADAS J.-Undoubtedly
a claim to a
higher
potential wage ·cannot ·!be brought in under the category of "claim
arising out of deduction from the wages or delay in payment of the
wages" if that wage depended on the "determination by a. superior
departmental or other authority as to whether or not a particular em·
ployee is entitled to the higher wage-a determination which in·
volves the exercise of administrative judgment or discretion or certi·
fication, and which would, in such a situation, be a condition of the
payability of the wage. But where the higher wage does not depend
upon such determination hut depends on the application of and
giving effect to certain rules and orders which, for this purpose,
must be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of employment,
such a wage is not a prospective wage merely ·because the paying
-authority concerned ·makes defau~t or commits error in working out
the application .of the rules. The wage .under the Act .i.s not n~ces
sarily the .immediately pre~existing wage but the presently payable
wage. _Whether·or' not an ·employee was entitled to wages of a higher
category than what he was till then drawing would depend entirely
on the sc<?pe of the rules with reference to which he is entitled to
become one in t~e· higher category and it cannot be .assumed a priori
that such a ·claim is a claim -to "prospective wages1".
On the facts of the case as found the. dispute as to the wage was
one that fell within the jurisdiction of the ·'.'authority". concerned.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
No. 147 of J95~.
J URJSDJCTION :
Appeal
Civil
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR

## Text

....
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1353
inconsistent . witli . the provisions of sections . 7. and 11
of the Act.
'.
..
.
. . . . . .
. .
" .. ,,
·It remains to consider the last argument advanced
on behalf ·of the lst · respondent that section. 23 of the.
Act prohibits an employee from relinquishing such a
right as is the subject matter of rule 3(i) · quoted
above. This argument proceeds on the . assumpti9n
that house rent allowance which is a right. conferred on the employee is an absolute right. It has
already been held above that the Act read along with
the rules which constitute the terms of the contract
between the employer and the employee does not
create any absolute right in the employee to the house
rent allowance. That being so, there is no question
of the employee relinquishing any such · right as is
contemplated by section 23.
For the reasons aforesaid,
the appeal
succeeds.
The orders passed by the Authority are set aside. Jn
the special circumstances of this case there will be no
order as to costs.
Appeal allowed: .
A. V. D'COSTA
v.
B. C. PATEL AND ANOTHER.
[VIVIAN BosE, ]AGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA
AYYAR and SINHA JJ.]
Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (IV of 1936), Ss. 5, 7, 15(1)(2)-
Claim for wages due on account of the introduction of upgrading
of persons-Claimant's right to be placed on monthly wages ignoredNo delay in payment of wages or deduction of wages alleged-Authority under the Act-Whether had jurisdiction to decide the complaint
of the applicant.
The second respondent had been an employee of the Central
Railway as a daily rated casual labourer on specified daily wages
since 1941. He continued to receive his wages at the specified rate
until October 1949. In October 1949 he made an application through
an official of the Registered Trade Union-a person permitted by the
authority under sub-section (2) of s. 15 of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936-claiming his wages due in respect of six months from
May to October 1949. The respondent did not allege delay in the
1955
The Divisional
Engineer, G./.P.
Railway
v.
Mahadeo Raghoo
and another
Sinha J.
1955
March 4
1955
A. V. D'Costa
v.
B. C. 'Patel
and another
1354
SUPREME COURT R.E?ORTS
[1955]
payment of ·his wages or deduction _of ,his wages ~n contravent;ion of
the provisions of s. 5 or s. ·7 of Act IV of 1936 respectively. The respondeot alleged that he had been paid his actual wageS' as fixed by
the railv.ray adn1inistration but that after the introduction of the
scheme of upgrading of persons employed under the ·daily wages
scheme, others who ·were· junior to him had been _placed on the
monthly wages scheme whereas his claim to be so placed, had been
ignored and that he had not been ·paid wages oi:i the .~cale to which
he would have been entitled .if he had been placed on the monthly
wages scheme.
Held, per SINHA J. (V1v1AN BosE and VENKATAMM~ AYYAR JJ.
corzcurring,
JAGAN_NADHADAs J. dissenting),
that the respondent's
complaint feJl under the category of potential wages· and the authority appointed under the Act had no jurisdiction .to decide the question of potential wages.
It had the jurisdiction to decide what
actually ·the t_erms of the contract between the parties. were, that is
to say, to· determine the ~c.tual wages.
·
On the case as made on behalf of the· respondent, orders of the
sup·erior officers were. necessary to upgrade him from a daily wage~
earner to a higher cadre.
·rhe authority under the Act has not
bee~ e~mpow.ered -~nder s. :is to
make
such .direction to the
superior officers.
· ·
Per
}AGANNADHADAS J.-Undoubtedly
a claim to a
higher
potential wage ·cannot ·!be brought in under the category of "claim
arising out of deduction from the wages or delay in payment of the
wages" if that wage depended on the "determination by a. superior
departmental or other authority as to whether or not a particular em·
ployee is entitled to the higher wage-a determination which in·
volves the exercise of administrative judgment or discretion or certi·
fication, and which would, in such a situation, be a condition of the
payability of the wage. But where the higher wage does not depend
upon such determination hut depends on the application of and
giving effect to certain rules and orders which, for this purpose,
must be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of employment,
such a wage is not a prospective wage merely ·because the paying
-authority concerned ·makes defau~t or commits error in working out
the application .of the rules. The wage .under the Act .i.s not n~ces
sarily the .immediately pre~existing wage but the presently payable
wage. _Whether·or' not an ·employee was entitled to wages of a higher
category than what he was till then drawing would depend entirely
on the sc<?pe of the rules with reference to which he is entitled to
become one in t~e· higher category and it cannot be .assumed a priori
that such a ·claim is a claim -to "prospective wages1".
On the facts of the case as found the. dispute as to the wage was
one that fell within the jurisdiction of the ·'.'authority". concerned.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
No. 147 of J95~.
J URJSDJCTION :
Appeal
Civil
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1355
Appeal by Special -Leave from the Judgment and
..... - Order dated the 24th day of August 1951 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 50 of
1951 arising out of the Order dated the 19th day of
June 1951 of the said Court exercising Original Juris--
diction in Misc. No. 143 of 1951.
. '
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Porus
A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him), for the appellant.
J. B.
Dadachanji, M. V. f ayakar and Rajinder
Narain, for respondent No. 2.
1955.
March 4. The Judgment of Vivian Bose,
Venkatarama Ayyar and Sinha JJ. was
delivered by
Sinha
J.
Jagannadhadas
J.
delivered
a
separate
judgment.
SINHA J.-This is an appeal by special leave from
the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
dated the 24th August 1951 upholding that of a single
Judge of that court sitting on the Original Side, dis--
missing the appellant's petition under art. 226 of the
Constitution for a writ of
certiorari quashing the
order dated the 23rd January 1951 passed by the 1st
respondent,
the
Authority
under the Payment of
Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The facts
leading up to this appeal may shortly be
stated as follows:
The 2nd respondent is and has been
at all material times an employee of the Central Railway
(formerly called the G.I.P. Rly.) represented by
the appellant who has been nominated by the Railway
Administration as
responsible for
payment
of
wages under section 3 of the Act.
Ever since 1941, the
2nd respondent has been employed by the Railway
Administration as a carpenter on daily wages, and has
been treated as a daily rated casual labourer and has
been paid his wages at the rate of Rs. 3-4-0 per day.
He continued receiving his wages at that rate until
October, 1949 without any demur, and granting receipts for the wages thus received. On the 2nd December, 1949, an application was made by one K. N. Pitkar
"an official
of
Registered Trade Union, a person
1955
A. V. D'Costa
V•
B •. C. Patel
and ·another
1955
A~ V. D'Cost~ ·
. v.
B. C. Patel
4nd another·
Sinha J.
1356
SUPREME COURT "REPORTS
[1955}
permitted by ·'the Authority" · under _sub-section (2) of
section 15 of · the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, against
the ·G.I.P. Rly. administration· through its
Divisional
Engineer, ·Pare!, Bombay. It was alleged ·on behalf of
the 2nd respondent that his · wages due in respect of
six months from May to October 1949 amounting to
Rs .. 245 had not been paid or had been subjected to
illegal deductions as shown in the schedule. The schedule will be set out hereinafter. A claim for Rs. 245
ph.1s Rs. 15 by way of compensation was made.
The appellant, as
the opposite
party before
the
Authority,
resisted
the
claim,
inter alia,
on
the
grounds---:
( 1) that Rs. 245 had not been illegally deducted
from the wages of the 2nd resp0ndent; and
(2) that the claim of the 2nd respondent who was
employed as a daily rated casual labourer on specified
daily wages, to be placed on a permanent cadre on the
scale of monthly rates of pay was unfounded.
it was further alleged that the 2nd respondent did
not come within· the purview of the Railway Services
(Revision of Pay) Rules as he was a daily rated casual
labourer charged to works and that no rules had been
laid down governing the rates of pay and the conditions of service of daily rated casual
labourers like
the 2nd respondent. Hence his terms of service were
the daily wages paid to him all along. It was thus
contended that there had been no deduction from his
wages. In this connection reference was made to the
award of the
Railway Workers Classification
Tribunal, dated the 28th May 1948.
The Authority by its orders dated the 23rd January
1951 decided that the position of the 2nd respondent
was not that of a casual labourer but that of a "temporary employee" and that therefore he was entitled
to be on the scale of Rs. 55-150 plus the allowances
admissible. In coming to this conclusion the Authority
observed that the work done by the 2nd respondent
is of the
same nature as
that of a member of the
permanent staff. Hence the 2nd respondent could not
be called a casual labourer. It also made reference to
I
•.
"
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1357
article 39( d) of the Constitution containing the direction that there should be equal pay . for equal work.
The Authority also ·negatived the contention raised
on behalf of the appellant that the question ·of classification of an· employee was
outside its jurisdiction. In
pursuance of the said order the Authority allowed the
2nd
respondent's
application by · ·its further
orders
dated the 2nd March 1951.
.
Against the said orders of the Authority the appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
by an application under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the aforesaid orders. The matter
was heard in the first· instance by a learned single
Judge of that court who by his orders. dated the 19th
June
1951
dismissed the application. The appellant
preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent which
was heard by a Division Bench of that court.
The
Division Bench by its order dated the 24th August
1951 dismissed the appeal and agreed with the conclusions of the Judge on the Original Side that the
Authority had not acted without jurisdiction or had
not exceeded its jurisdiction in · entertaining the 2nd
respondent's
application.
On
the appellant's application for leave to appeal to this court being rejected
by the High Court, the appellant moved this court
and obtained special leave to
appeal on the 2nd
February 1953.
The main controversy between the parties in this
court is whether, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act, the 1st respondent was competent to
pass the orders it did, which orders had been upheld
by the High Court of Bombay.
The Authority set up under section 15 of the
statute
in
question is undisputably a tribunal of
limited jurisdiction. Its power to hear and determine
disputes must necessarily be found in the provisions
of the Act. Such a tribunal, it is undoubted, cannot
determine any controversy which is not within the
ambit of those provisions.
On examining the
relevant provisions of the Act it will be noticed that it
aims at regulating the payment of wages to certain
classes of persons employed in industry.
It applies
12 90-S. C. India/59
.. 1955
A. V. D'Costa
v.
B. C. Patel
and another
. Sinha J.
·•955
. A. v. ·n·costa
·v.
-
B. C. Parel
end ·another
-·
Sinha J.
·1358
•SUPREME COURT REPORTS
['1955J
in the first. instance to the:· payment of.wages to ·persons employed fo any .factory or. employed by a rail-
· way· administration; but. the · State Government ·has
the power· after: giving three months' notice to extend
the provisions of the ·Act or any of .them. to · ·the •payment of' wages ·to any . cla.ss of persons employed .in
any
class
or
group
of
industrial· .establishments.
"Wages" means-
"all remuneration, capable of being · expressed
in
terms of money, which would, if . the terms of •the contract of employment, express · or implied, •were ful-
·filled, be: ;payabl~: .... :to a person employed in respect
of his employment or · of work done in such employment .... " (omitting words not necessary for our present purpose).
·
·
·
·
· ·
Section 3 lays down that every · employer or his <epresentative or nominee ·shall be ·responsible for the
payment to persons employed ·by him of all wages.
Section
3 ·provides
for
fixati(>n of "wage-periods"
which shall not exceed one month in any· case. Section 5 indicates the last date within· which, with reference to the particular wage-period, wages shall be
paid, Section 7 lays down that the wages ·of · an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions
of any kind except those authorized by or under die
Act. Section 7(2) in clauses (a) to (k) specifies the
heads under which deductions from wages may · be
made, namely,
fines; deductions for absence
from
duty; deductions for damage to or loss of goods of
the · employer;
deductions for
house accommodation
supplied by
the employer; deductions for
amenities
and services supplied by the employer; deductions for
recovery of advances or for
adjustment of overpayments of wages; deductions of income-tax payable · by
the employee; deductions to be made under orders of
a court or other competent authority; deductions for
subscriptions to, ·and for repayment of advances from
any provident. fund; deductions for payments to cooperative societies, etc.; and finally, deductions ·made
with the ·concurr.ence of the employed person in 'furtherance· .·of . cenain schemes approved by Government.
No .other deductions are permissible. It is also laid
•
'
-
SWPRBME COUR'f REPORTS
down that every>payment·. :m;:tde by .. .the employ.ed. peri
son to the· employer or his agent shall be d.eerrw~ to
be deduction · from wages. Each of, the ·several, h~ds
of deductions aforesaid is dealt with in detail , in sections 8 to· 13. Section· 8 lays down the, c<,)llditio~~ an\!
limits subject to which fines may be imposed. and, the
procedure· for imposing such· .fines .. , hi ;;i.lso requil;"e$ a
register of such fines to be. maintained. by. the ;per.son
responsible for .. the payment of wages.
Section 9
dea~s with deductions on account of absence from .duty
and prescribes . the. limits and the proportion therepf
to wages.. Section IO similarly deals with deductions
for damage or' loss to the employer and the procedure
for determining the same.' Like sec;tion . 8, this section
also requires a register of such deductions and . realiza-
.tions to be maintained by the person fesponsible ,for
the payment . of wages. Section 11
lays down the
limits of deductions for house accommodation and
other amenities or
services . which , may have been
accepted by the employee, subject to such cqnditions
as the State Government may .impose. Section 12 lays
down the conditions subject to which deductions for
recovery of advances may be made from wages .. Finally
section 13 provides that the deductions for payment
!O co-operative societies and insurance
schemes. shall
be subject to such conditions as the State. Government may prescribe. Section 14 makes provision for
the appointment of Inspectors for carrying out the
purpose of the Act, with power to enter on any premises and to examine any registers or documents re"
lating to the calculation or payment of wages and to
take evidence on the spot. His function is to s~ that
the registers or documents prescribed by the Act ,containing the necessary entries
as
regards
deductions
and other matters have been properly kept by. the
employers or their agents in order to be able to ascertain · whether any deductions from wages in excess of
the provisions of sections 7 to 13 aforesaid have been
made. We then come to section 15 which makes pro-
. vision. for the appointment of the . Authority "to . hear
and decide for .any specified area all claims arising out
'of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of
.l/)55
A •. V, P'Costa
v.
13, C. Patel
imiJ. !UIOl/zer
Sinha J.
1955
A. V. D'Costa
'
v.
B. C. Pai.I
iznd anothir
1360
SUPRBME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
the wages of persons employed or• paid .in that area".
Where · the Authority finds that any · deduction. has
been made from the wages of an employed, person or
the payment of any wages had been; delayed; he may
at the instance ·of the wage-earner himself or any
legal practitioner ot any official of a registered . trade
union . authorized in writing to act on · his ·behalf, or
any Inspector under the Act or any other person. acting · with the ·permission ·of the Authority, after. making s1Kh enquiry · as he thinks fit and 'after <giving an
opportunity to the
person · resp0nsible for ·the pay,
ment of. wages urider section 3 tO ,;how · cause; . direct
the refund to the employed person· of · the amount
deducted or · the payment of delayed wages" together
with such · compensation as he may · determine. The
section als0 lays down the limits and conditions · of
his power to direct payment oL compensation to the
employed person . or of penalty to the employer, if. he
is satisfied that the application made on· behalf of an
employee
was
either
malicious or
vexations. · His
determination is .final. subject to a very limited right
of appeal
under section
17.
Section 18
vests ·the
Authority with all the powers of a civil court under
the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of taking
evidence,
of
enforcing the attendance of witnesses
and of compelling the production qf documents. Sec:
tion 22 lays down that no court shall entertain any
suit in respect of wages or of deduction from· wages
in so far as the claim forms the subject matter of a
pending proceeding under the Act or has formed the
subject of a direction in favour of or against the
plaintiff under section 15, or which could have been
recovered by the application under that section.
Section 26 empowers the State Government to make rules
to regulate the procedure to be followed by the authorities and courts referred to in sections 15 and 17 and
provides that rules may be made inter alia, requiring
the
maintenance
of
records, registers, returns and
notices necessary under the Act · and the display 'in a
conspicuous place of notices specifying the rates
of
wages payable to persons employed on such premises;
and prescribing the authority for making a list of
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR17 REPORTS
1361
imposed and the procedure for imposing such fines.
acts and omissions in· respect of which fines ma:y be
We have set. out· above in some detail the relevant
provisions ·of the Act in order to point out that ·those
provisions are not applicable to the complaint' made
in the present case. In this connection it is necessary
to set out in extenso the "particulars of claim" · in the
schedule appended to his application which are · as
follows:
"The applicant is working as a carpenter-mason
with
the
opposite
party
under
I.O.W.,
Byculla.
Accordiilg to the orders on introduction of the prescribed scales, the Railway · Administration has to· make
the staff working under I.O.W. on permanent monthly
wages scheme under the rules of the prescribed scales.
The applicant along with others was up till ·now under
daily wages scheme. About 20 posts under ·I.O.W.
where the applicant is working were to be made permanent. The opposite party in supersession of claim
of the applicant has confirmed his juniors on the permanent scales as a skilled workman in the scale of
55-3-85-4-125-5-130,
whereas
the opposite party continued to pay the applicant on daily wages scheme
thus depriving him of his legitimate wages under the
prescribed scale, which resulted in the monetary loss
to the applicant of Rs. 40-13-4 ·per month. Notice on
behalf of the applicant ·was served on this count ·on
the opposite party but of no avail and hence this
application. The juniors have been paid under the
prescribed scales from April, 1949, from which date
the applicant was also entitled to the prescribed 'scale
55-130 (scale for skilled workman)".
There is no allegation of delay in payment of wages
inasmuch as it is not the respondent's case that his
wages were not paid within the time limit laid down
iii section 5; nor are there allegations to· ·show that
any payments have been made by the employed person to the employer or his agent · which could be
deemed to be a deduction from his wages within the
meaning of section 7. · None of the ·categories of
deductions as laid 'down in section 7 have been referred
to. In" other words, it is not alleged that his wages
1955
{I· V. D'Costa
v.
B. C. Patel
and atUJthe1"
Sinha J.
1362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955)
1955
were so much a"nd that so' much had been deducted
A. V.D'Costa ·.under any of the heads set out under section 7(2).
v.
. ·. The allegations made by the respondent only amount
B. c. Patel
to saying tha_t he had been paid his actual wages
andanother·c_·_as fixed by the railway administration but that after
' the introduction of the scheme of upgrading of perSinha J. ·
sons employed under the daily wages scheme, others
.--
who were ·junior to him had been placed on the
monthly wages scheme whereas his claim to be so
placed had been ignored.'. The respondent's main
grievance, therefore, appears to be that he had not
been paid wages on the scale to which he would have
been entitled if he had been placed on the monthly
wages scheme.
··· ·
In our opinion, the scheme of the Act as set forth
above shows that if an employee were. to. state that
his wages were, say Rs.100 per month, and that Rs.10
· had been wrongly deducted by the authority responsible for the paynient of wages, that is to say, that the
deductions could not come under any one of the categories laid down in section 7(2), that would be a
straight case within the pur:view of the Act and the
authority appointed under section 15 could entertain
the dispute.
But it is said on behalf of the respondent that the authority has the jurisdiction not
only to make directions contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 15 to refund to the employed person any amount unlawfully deducted but also to
find out what the terms of the contract were so as to
determine what the wages of the employed person
were.
There is no difficulty in accepting that proposition. If the parties entered into the contract of
service, say by correspondence and the contract is to
be determined with reference to the letters that
passed between them, it may be open to the authority·
to decide the controversy and find out what the terms
of the contract with reference to those ·letters were.
But if an employee were to say that his wages were
Rs. 100 per month which he actually received as and
when they fell due but that he would be entitled to
higher wages if his claims to be placed on the higher
· w~ges scheme had been recognized andgiven_ effect to,
. ' i\
S.C.R.'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1363
that would not, in our opinion, be a matter within
·the ambit of his jurisdiction. The authority has the
jurisdiction to decide what actually the terms of the
contract between the parties were,.that is to say, to
determine the actual wages; but the authority has no
jurisdiction to determine the question of potential
wages. The respondent's complaint in the present case
comes within the latter illustration.
If the respon-.
dent's claim to be placed on the scheme of higher
wages had been unduly passed over by the appellant,
if indeed he had the power to do so, the obvious remedy of the respondent. was to approach the higher
authorities of the railway administration by 0 way __ of
. I'
departmental appeal or revision; but instead of doing
· .I '
that, he has sought his redress by making. his claim
:_ , before the authority under the Act. The question is,
has the authority the power to direct the appellant
or his superior officers who may have been responsible
for the classification, to revise the classification so as
to upgrade him from the category of a daily wageearner to that of an employee on the monthly wages
scheme. If the respondent had been on the cadre of
monthly wages and if the appellant had withheld his
rise in wages to which he was automatically entitled,
without any orders of his superior officers, he might
justly have claimed the redress of his grievance from
the authority under the Act, as it would have amounted to an underpayment. But· in the present case,
on the case as made on behalf of the respondent,
orders of the superior officers were necessary to. upgrade him from a daily wage-earner to a higher cadre.
The authority under the Act has not been empowered
under section 15 to make any such direction· to those
superior officers. The appellant is responsible to pay
the respondent only such wages as are shown in the
relevant register of wages presumably maintained by
the department under the provisions of the.· Act, but
he cannot be directed to pay the respondent higher
wages on the determination by the authority that he
be should have been placed on the monthly wages
scheme.
· ·
In that view of the matter it is not necessary to go
1955
A~ V. D' Costa
v.
B. C. Patel
and another
Sinha J.
1955
A. V. D'Costa
v.
B. C. Patti
and another
Sinha ].
1364
-SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
into the merits of the. controversy . as to , what .classification · as
adumbrated
by · · the ·Railway
Workers'
·Classification Tribunal, .·and adopted by. the · Railway
administration, · the second · respondent
should have
been brought under. ·.If that question were . ·open to
determination by the Authority, .we would have· had to
·remit the case to the Authority ··to give . a fresh opportunity to the parties to adduce. all the relevant evidence and then to come to its final conclusiohs, . as it
appeared to us during the hearing of the case . that all
relevant information had not been placed before the
Authority. But, as, in our opinion; that is not a
matter within' its limited jurisdiction,
that
contingency does not arise.
For the reasons given above we allow this appeal,
quash the orde'rs of the Authority and of the High
Court, but in the special circumstances of this case
we make · no order as to costs.
]AGANNADHADAS J.-I · regret that I ·find · myself
unable to agree.
The second respondent before us, employed as a
carpenter in the Railway since 1941, has' beeri working as daily-rated casual labourer. He claimed that
he should
have · been absorbed· as a monthly-rated
permanent employee and that he has · been wrongly
superseded. His ·claim to be treated as a permanent
employee was apparently not accepted bf the Tribunal (the Authority under ·section 15 of the Payment
of Wages Act for Bombay). But it was held that the
position of · the applicant · is not that of a daiJy;rated
casual labourer but that of a · monthly"rated ·temporary employee. His· claim: was treated · and upheld' ·by
the Tribunal ·as one substantially based on. the gioun.d
that . the Award of ·the Railway Workers' · Classification Tribunal ·in relation ·to the recominendaticiils of
the Central Pay Commission was approved· ·by the
Railway Board and ·directed to be · implemented, and
that by virtue thereof he was: no longer a mere castial
labourer but was entitled to higher wages on the' footing of a monthly-rated labourer, No question ,arises
that the order of the Tribu:na:l "is bad · owirig to the
..
..
"\.-
-~
,S.C.R;
SUPREME 'coURT REPORTS
1365
variation between the · cl:iim ·-made · and the relief
_granted.
As hdd by the High Court, pleadings in
these cases have to- be liberally construed. That his
claim was understood as having been based· on the
Award of Railway Workers' · Classification Tribunal,
''by the Railway Authorities themselves, is clear from
the statement filed on their behalf in answer to the
-employee's claim. Apart from the question of jurisdiction, the defence was two.fold.
(1) The applicant
being a daily-rated casual labourer, charged to works,
the directive of the Railway Board did not apply to
him. (2) Even if it applied to a person in the situation of the applicant, he was not entitled to be brought
•On to the monthly-rates of pay in the skilled grade,
without his previously passing a trade test to establish himself as skilled in his trade and he did not pass
the test. The Tribunal, on the material referred to
by it in its order. came to the conclusion (1) that the
applicant did Iiot fall within the category of
workcharged staff, (2) that under the Award of the Rail-
·way Workers' Classification Tribunal,· no trade test
was necessary for the applicant who was a carpenter,
and (3) that as per certain instructions of the con-
. ccrned authority, the period of casual labour was to
-be limited to six months, and that since this applicant
was admittedly a Casual labourer under the Railway
for a much larger period, i.e. since 1941, he became
entitled to be treated as a temporary employee and
not as a casu'1,.l labourer and to receive wages as such.
·whether these conclusions are right or wrong is not
·the question before us. The only question is whether
·or not the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to find that
the applicant was entitled to
the emoluments
of
a monthly-rated temporary employee and not to that
·of a daily-rated casual labourer, as the result of the
order of the Railwa7 Board directing implementation
of the Award of the Classification Tribunal.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal arises under sec-
·tion 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act IV
-of 1936)
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The
'Tribunal is set up to decide "all claims arising out of
·deductions from
~he_ wages or delay . in payment . of
1955
· A. V. D'Costa
v.
B. C, Patel
and another
Jagannadhadas J.
1366.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.
\
.
[1955]
1955
·wages".
Th~ relief which it is authorised to award is
-to direct "the refund of the amount deducted, or the
A. v. ~·eosia
payment of the wages delayed". Such a direction
B. c. Patel
\ made by the Tribunal is final, under section 17 of the
and another · ' Act, subject to the right of appeal provided therein.
Under section 22, no suit lies in any court for the reJagannadhadasJ. covery of wages or of any deduction therefrom which
could have been recovered by an application under
section 15. However limited this jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and however elaborate. the provisions· in
the Act for the preparation and display by the employer of the table of wages payable to the employees,
and for the inspection thereof by the Factory Inspectors, it cannot be supposed that the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal is only to enforce the wages so displayed
or otherwise admitted: Such a narrow construction
would rob the machinery of the Act of a great deal
of its utility and would confine its application to
cases whiCh are not likely to· arise often, in a wellordered administration like the Railways. Indeed,
I do not gather that such a construction was pressed
for, before us, in the arguments. · ·Even a Tribunal of
limited jurisdiction, like the one under consideration,
must necessarily have ·.the jurisdiction to decide, for
itself, the preliminary facts on which the claim or
dispute before it depends. In the instant case, it
·must have jurisdiction to decide what the wages pay-
· able are and, for that purpose, 'what the contract of
employment and the terms thereof a:re. The judgment
of my learned brothers in this case apparently recognises the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as above
stated, when it said that the Tribunal has the power
•"to find out what the ternis of the contract were to
determine what the wages of the employed person.
were". 'Vhether the Tribunal's decision in this behalf is conclusive or not is a matter that does not
arise for decision in this case.
But, it is said that the Tribunal bas no authority
to determine the question of "potential wages''.
Undoubtedly a claim to a higher potential wage cannot be brought in under the category of "claim arising out of deduction from the wages or delay in pay-
S.C.R.
\' .
'
..
.
,,
-·-
~· -
-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
\
.
1367
1955.
. ,_ ment of the wages"iif that wage depended . on the
determination by a'· superior. departmental or ether
authority as to whether or not a particular employee
A. v. ~·costa
is entitled to the higher wage-.:a determination which
B. c. Pat.i
involves the exercise of administrative judgment or
a•a another
discretion or certification, and which would, in such
· -
a situation, be a condition of the payability of the JagannaahadasJ.
wage.· ·But where the higher wage does not depend
upon such determination but depends on the application of,· and· giving effect to, certain rules and orders
which, for this purpose, must be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of employment, such a wage
· is, in my view, not a prospective wage, merely because the paying authority concerned makes default
or commits error in working out the application of the
rules. · In this context it is relevant to notice that
the definition of "wages" in the Act is "all remuneration which would if the terms of the contract, express
or implied, were fulfilled, be payable". The word
"were" in this definition which I have underlined;
Reems to indicate that even a "prospective wage"
which would be payable on the proper ·application of
the rules in the sense which I ha:ve explained above
may well fall within its scope. The. wage under the
Act is not, necessarily, the immediately pre-existing
wage but the presently-payable wage.
. · ·
·
· In the case before us, the order of the Tribunal
proceeded on the view that the applicant was present~
ly entitled to be treated as a monthly-rated· tempo-
. rary employee and not as a daily-rated casual labourer,
by virtue of the directions of the Railway Board for
the· implementation of the scheme of classification
and that therefore he was entitled to the appropriate
higher wage. We have not been shown any material
to indicate that this higher classification of the appli-
·cant depended not on the mere application, of the
classification scheme and the rules thereunder, to him
but upon any determinll;tioii by a departmental higher
authority. If it was the latter, undoubtedly the
Tribunal cannot claim to sit in judgment over that
determination, whether it was ~ight or wrong. Such
175
A. V. D'Costa
v.
B. C. Patti
and another
jagannadhadas J.
B68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
·determination, ··if. wrong, could , ·be -,corrected only • by
a further departmental appeal; ·if :any; available_, But
the Tribunal had, to my mind,, the . authority. to find
whether the applicant's .case falls
within the : scope
of determination by- the departmental. ·authority -or is
one- of mere application of the. rules to the facts .. of
this ·case. If the decision of the Tribunal in this behalf was wrong, the appropriate remedy for. the Railway Authority was by way of· an appeal under section
17 ·of the Act. Since . the finding _of the Tribunal in
this case involved the case of as many ·as six· persons
and the net additional amount ordered was a sum of
Rs. 1,341, its finding was appealable. under section
17 of the Act. Whether or not ·an employee, was entitled to wages of a higher- category than what he was
till then drawing would depend entirdy on the scope
of the rules with reference tci · which he is entitled to
become one in the higher category and it . cannot be
assumed a priori that such a claim · is a claim to
"prospective wages".
In my view, therefore, there is no sufficient reason
to reverse· the judgment of the learned Judges of the
Bombay High Court and this appeal should be dismissed with .costs.
BY THE CouRT. In accordance with the decision
of the majority, the appeal is allowed and the orders
of the· Authority and of the.High Court are quashed.
There will be no order as to costs throughout.
· Appeal allowed.
'
...