http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAGAN NATH PANDURANG AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/03/1972

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 2356            1972 SCR  (3) 929  1972 SCC  (2) 119  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1974 SC1495  (11)

ACT: Constitution   of  India,  1950--Article    133(1)(b)-Scope- Appeals-Certificate to appeal to Supreme Court.

HEADNOTE: 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 of the dispute; if  there  is  no question or claim raised respecting property other than  the subject matter, then, clause (a) of article 133 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. [94O G] 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 1963.  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 Court  on the  basis of a certificate issued by the High  Court  under article 133(1)(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 ground that the case 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 wages 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 over Rs. 20,000/-.  The appellant  bad  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

liability.  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 property of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and more. The  respondents  moved  this Court for  revocation  of  the Certificate.   They  urged that what weighed with  the  High Court  ’for granting a certificate under  article  133(1)(b) was  the circumstance that the nature of the demands by  the workmen  were such as they were recurring 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 thisview of the High Court was erroneous’. HELD  :that the certificate issued by the High  Court  under article  13,3(1)(b) was not proper and valid and  hence  the appeal was unsustainable. 930 (i) The High Court has   not given any indication as to  how it  issued  the certificate under  article133(1)(b);  it  is clear  that  it did not grant the certificate on  the  claim made  by  the appellant, under clause (a) or clause  (c)  of article 133(1).  [937 A] (ii)  In  view of the fact that the High Court  granted  the certificate  under article 133(1)(b), it has to he  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.  [937 C-D] (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 of affecting the rights of  the  appellant  regarding  other  properties,  including money.  The judgment of the High Court has 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, apart from/the  subject matter   of  the  writ  petition,  any  claim  or   question respecting  property or money of the value of  Rs.  2O,000/- and more.  The appellant was not entitled to notionally add, to  the  amount  originally  claimed  by  the  workmen   for particular  periods any further amounts on the  ground  that they  must be considered to have accrued due to the  workmen till the date of the judgment of the High Court. [945 E, 946 E] Chaitarmal v. M/s.  Pannalal Chandulal, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 751, applied. A.  V. Subramania Ayyar v. Sellammal, I.L.R. 39 Madras  843, Meghji Lakhamshi and Brothers v. Furniture Workshop,  [1954] Appeals  Cases 80; Smt.  Rajah Kishore Devigaru v.  Bhaskara Gouta   Chorani   and  others,  A.I.R.   1960,   A.P.   286, Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. S. L. Mathias,  A.I.R. 1938  Mad.  352;  G. Appuswamy Chettiar and  another  v.  R. Sarangapani Chettiar and others, [1965] (1) I.L.R. 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 I.A. 155, referred to.

JUDGMENT: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

Civil Miscellaneous Petition- No. 1300 of 1972. (Application   by   the  Respondents   for   revocation   of certificate granted by the High Court.) Soli  Sorabji, K. D. Mehta, P. C. Bhartari and O. 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 and 108, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, on certificate, by the  Bombay Gas  Co.  Ltd., is directed against the judgment  and  order dated  931 February  6, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Special  Civil Application No. 1987 of 1965.  The 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 Additional Authority for calculating  and awarding over-time wages that may be due to the  respondents 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. 8 1 to 1 1 8 herein, regarding their  right to  get wages for weekly off days.  C.M.P. No. 1300 of  1972 is  an  application filed by the, respondents in  the  civil appeal  for revoking the certificate for leave to appeal  to this  Court  granted  by the High  Court  to  the  appellant herein. We  will  briefly state the circumstances  under  which  the appeal   has  come  to  this  Court  on   certificate:   The respondents  Nos.  1  to  14 who  were  employed  under  the appellant  as Syphon Pumpers filed on March 3,  1958  before the Additional Authority 14 applications 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,  who 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 substantially  based  under  the provisions  of  the  Bombay Shops,  and  Establishments  Act, 1948  (hereinafter  to  be referred  as the Establishments Act).  The appellant  raised two,  grounds of defence: (a) The claims were barred by  the Award,  Part  II of the Industrial  Tribunal,  Bombay  dated March  30, 1950 in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1949;  and  (b). The   applicants   were   not   workmen   covered   by   the Establishments  Act.   On October 13, 1962,  the  Additional Authority  held that the Award, referred to, by the  Company was  no bar to the said employees claiming over-time  wages. But  the  said  Authority accepted  the  contention  of  the Company   that  the  applicants  are  not  covered  by   the Establishments  Act, which gives them the benefit of  weekly off  days  with  wages under s. 18(3).   In  this  view  the applications  filed by the respondents Nos.  1 to 80  herein were dismissed.  The said applicants filed before the  Court of Small Causes.  Bombay, which was the Appellate Authority, Payment   of  Wages  Appeals  Nos.  162  and  163  of   1962 challenging  the  decision  dated October 13,  1962  of  the Additional Authority, .dismissing their applications. During  the  years 1962-63, the respondents Nos. 81  to  118 herein, in the Civil Appeal filed 38 applications before the Third  Additional Authority under s. 15 of the Act  claiming wages  for  weekly  off days.   The  said  respondents  were working in Mains,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

932 Heating.    Appliances.  and  Fitting  Departments  of   the appellant.  Here 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 Additional Authority,  by  it,$ 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  entertain  the applications  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  wages.  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 the  judgment  to respondents  Nos. 81 to II 8 and also to pay certain  amount by. way of corn sensation.  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 Additional  Authority dated April 26, 1963 regarding payment of wages for  ’weekly off days. All  the  three appeals, namely, Payment of  Wages  Appeals; Nos. 162 and 163 of 1962 relating to over-time wages,  filed by  the  respondents  Nos.  1 to 80, and  Payment  of  Wages Appeal No. 61 of 1963 filed by the Company relating to  wag- es for weekly off days decreased to..respondents Nos. 81  to 118  were  heard  together  and .disposed  of  by  a  common judgment dated February 11, 1965 by the Appellate Authority, the  Court of S mall 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  Re- ference  (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 Nos. 162 and 163  of  1962  were dismissed  and  Payment of Wages Appeal No. 61 of  1963  was allowed.  The result was, that the applications filed by the employees  before  the Additional Authority  and  the  Third Additional Authority stood dismissed. It  must  however  be  stated  that  though  the   Appellate Authority, .the Court of Small Causes, Bombay held that  the claimes  of  all  the workmen both for  overtime  wages  and weekly   off   days  ’wages  were  barred  by   the   Award, nevertheless  it  also considered the question  whether  the workmen are employed in a "Commercial Establishment so as to claim  relief. under the Establishments Act., The  Appellate Authority  held  that the district office,  of  the  Company though  situated,within the,, compound of the factory  is  a "Commercial  Establishment"  under the  Establishments  Act. Accordingly,  the  Court of Small Causes  agreed  ’With  the finding of the Third 933 Additional Authority, that the workman 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  in Reference  (IT) No. 54 of 1949, the workmen’s  appeals  were dismissed and the appeal , filed by the company was allowed. As stated earlier, the decision of the court of small causes resulted  in the dismissal of all the applications filed  by the  workmen  before both the Additional Authority  and  the Third Additional Authority.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

All  the  118 workmen filed before the  Bombay  High  Court, Special Civil Application.  No. 1987 of 1965 under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, dated February 11, 1965.   By its  judgment  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.  8 1 to 1 1 8 for wages for weekly-off days was  barred by  the  Award, Part 11, dated March 30, 1950  in  Reference (IT)  No. 54 of 1949.  So far as the respondents Nos.  1  to 80 were concerned, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, ;is well as the  order dated  October  13,  1962 of the  Additional  Authority  and remanded  their applications to the latter for  ascertaining and decreasing the amount of over-time wages that may be due to  them.   Regarding the respondents Nos. 8 1 to II  8  the High Court has set aside the judgment of the Court of  Small Causes, Bombay, and restored the 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  in  a  "Commercial Establishment"  and as such are entitled to the benefits  of the  provisions of the Establishments Act.  The  High  Court has  also  stated  that  the reason  given  by  the  counsel appearing  for the Company for not challenging that  finding was  that  it  was  not open to the  Company,  which  was  I 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 as held by the  Court  of  Small Causes.   On  this point, as pointed out earlier,  the  High Court  disagreed  with the decision of the  Court  of  Small Causes. The  appellant  filed on April. 6, 1967 in  the  High  Court Application  No.  869 of 1967 praying, for the  grant  of  a certificate of fitness 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 the Additional and Third Additional Authorities, the amounts claimed  by  the  work-men, the decision  of  the  said  two Authorities  as well as the judgment and order of the  Court of Small Causes, and the High Court, it was stated 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.  It was further stated that  in any  event the case is a fit one for appeal to  this  Court. Accordingly,  the  appellant  prayed  for  the  grant  of  a certificate  that the amount or value of the subject  matter in  the said Special Civil Application, 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. 20,000 and upwards or  in the alternative on the ground that the case is a  fit one for appeal to this Court. It  will be seen, that though the appellant did not  specify under which clause of Art. 133(1) the certificate was  asked for,  nevertheless  a perusal of the averments made  in  the petition  and  the  prayers  made  therein  show  that   the appellant  was  asking for a certificate under  clauses  (a) and,  or (c) of Art. 133(1).  The High Court  after  hearing all parties, by its order dated October 19, 1967 directed  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

certificate   to   issue  under  Art.   133(1)(b)   of   the Constitution.   On .the basis of the said  certificate,  the petition of appeal has been lodged by the appellant in  this Court on December 16, 1967. The respondent ha; filed C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972  requesting this  Court  to  revoke  the  certificate  granted  to   the appellant  by  the High Court on October 19, 1967.   If  the certificate is revoked, that will result in our holding that the  appeal is not competent.  Hence we will deal  with  the application for revocation of the certificate. In  the  affidavit filed in support of the  application  for revocation,  the  following averments are made:  The  appeal refers  to  two  sets  of  claims  which  are  separate  and independent  of each other one for over-time wages  and  the other  for wages for weekly off days.  The  applications  in respect  of  these two different claims were  filed  by  the concerned workmen before two different Authorities under the Act   and  were  also  disposed  of  separately   by   those Authorities.   Separate  appeals were preferred  before  the Court  of  Small  Causes.   Though  a  common  judgment  was delivered  by  the Court of Small Causes, the  two  sets  of claims have been dealt with independently and separately  in the judgment, as there were, separate and different appeals. The  claim for weekly off days wages comes only to Rs.  6675 and  that  was the value of the subject  matter  before  the Third  Additional  Authority and in the  appeal  before  the Court of Small Causes as well as in the writ petition before the High Court.  The same is the value of the subject 935 matter  of  the  appeal to this Court.   The  value  of  the subject  matter of the claim in respect of  over-time  wages was  only Rs. 10660 before the Additional Authority  and  in the  appeals before the Court of Small Causes, in  the  High Court,  as  well as in the appeal before  this  Court.   The value  of the subject matter of neither of the two  separate and  distinct  claims is Rs. 20,000; and even  if  both  the claims  are added, the value of the subject matter  is  less than Rs. 20,000.  It was, in view of this circumstance, that the   High   Court  did  not  grant  a   certificate   under Art.133(1)(a). The High Court did not consider the case as a fit  one for appeal to this Court, and hence no  certificate 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 demands made by  the workmen were such that they are recurring claims arising  in the future also and as such the final judgment 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  Court  is  erroneous  and contrary  to  the decisions of this Court and  as  such  the grant of’ certificate by the High Court is erroneous. Along  with  the application, the respondents have  filed  a statment to show that the value of the subject matter of the claim  regarding over-time wages does not exceed Rs.  10660. 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 it does not include the amount claimed by the 14 Syphon Pumpers. On  behalf  of the appellant, an affidavit  has  been  filed opposing the application for revocation of the  certificate. In this affidavit the averments made are as follows : Though the   appeal  has  been.  pending  in  this  Court   for   a considerable   time,   the  respondents   have   filed   the application for revocation of the certificate only when  the appeal  was about to be heard.  It is pointed out  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

respondents  opposed before the High Court  the  application for grant of certificate on the ground that the aggregate of all claims put together amounts only to Rs. 17678.80 P., and hence  no certificate should be granted.  The appellant  had filed a rejoinder giving details regarding the value of  the subject  matter  of the appeal to this Court.   As  per  the particulars  given therein, the value of the subject  matter of the entire claim in respect of overtime wages, weekly off days wages and compensation is of the value of Rs. 26822.09. Therefore,  the  amount or value of the  subject  matter  in dispute in the court of the first instance and still in dis- pute  in the appeal is Rs. 26822.09, which is well over  the prescribed  limit of Rs. 20,000.  The claim for  weekly  off days wages at the rate claimed by the workmen on the date of the  judgment  of the High Court, that is February  6,  1967 became  crystalised  in, the aggregate amount  of  over  Rs. 30,000.  Similarly, the claim 936 for over. time wages as a result, and effect of the judgment of  the  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 controversy regarding the  amount  or value of the subject matter in dispute-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 was,  at the time of the High Court’s judgment in  the  writ petition  on February 6, 1967, had crystalised into  amounts exceeding Rs. 20,000, the High Court issued the  certificate under Art.133(1)(b) and that the certificate so issued under the said Article is perfectly valid. We  have  set out fairly elaborately the claim made  by  the resPondents  in  C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972  for  revoking  the certificate  granted  by,  the  High  court  as  well.   as. the,defence  pleaded by the appellant to  that  application. In its. application before the High Court, the appellant did not  specify  tinder  what  clause  of  Art.  133  (1)   the certificate was prayed for.  But from the material averments made  by  the appellant in its application before  the  High Court  for grant of certificate, it is to be  gathered  that the  prayer was substantially on the ground that the  amount or  value of the subject matter of the  applications  before 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. 20,0001/- and upwards.  This prayer will bring the application under Art. 133(1) (a).  In the  alternative, the  certificate was prayed for on the ground that the  case is fit one for appeal to this Court.  This prayer will  come under  Art. 133 (1) (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 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 was no substantial question of  law of  any  great importance arose for consideration so  as  to attract  Art. 133 (1) (c).  After giving  details  regarding the nature of the claims made by the workmen, both as  over- time wages and weekly off days wages, it was stated that the claim  fell  far short of the sum of Rs. 20,000/-.   As  the High Court had only adjudicated upon that claim in the, writ petition,  the respondents pleaded that the judgment of  the High Court does not involve directly or indirectly any claim or question respecting property of the value of Rs. 20,000/-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

or more. The High Court on October 19, 1967 granted the certificate in the following terms               "Certificate to issue under Art. 133 (1)(b) of               the Constitution.  Costs in the Supreme  Court               appeal."  937 From  the above it will be seen that the High Court has  not given  any  indication as to how it issued  the  certificate under  Art. 133(1)(b).  But one thing is clear that  it  did not grant the certificate on the basis of the claim made  by the  appellant  either’under  el. (a) or  el.  (c)  of  Art. 133(1).   On the basis of the claims made by the workmen  as over-time wages and weekly off days *ages for the particular periods,  the appellant had calculated at the same rate  for even subsequent periods till the date 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 and as such it will  have  to face a recurring liability.  On this basis the appellant has raised  a plea that 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 appellant’s plea that a certificate  could  be granted  under  the said clause when 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 circumstances the certificate granted under Art. 1 3 3 (1) (b) by the High Court, is proper and valid. It  is  significant  to  note that in  paragraph  7  of  the petition  of appeal filed in this Court, the, appellant  has stated that it is not possible to estimate at a money  value the subject-,matter of dispute in the appeal.  Accordingly,, it  has  paid only a fixed, court fee Rs. 250/- as  per  the rules.  In the claim statement filed by the appellant before the High Court, if has stated that Rs. 6675.84 is claimed as weekly off wages by the respondents Nos. 80 to 118 and a sum of Rs. 18221.25 is claimed by the respondents Nos. 1, to  80 as  over-time  wages.  These two different claims  were  not consolidated  before  th Authorities because the  claim  for weekly  off  wages was dealt with by  the,-Third  Additional Authority  and the claim for over-time wages was dealt  with by the Additional Authority. According  to the Union the claim for over-time  wages  does not  exceed Rs. 1,0660/- But it is not, necessary for us  to go further into this aspect as Art. 1-33(1)(a) is out of the picture. The appellant, relying on the calculation filed by it before the  High Court has further stated in its-  affidavit  dated February  18, 1972, filed in opposition to  the  application for revocation, that, on the basis  of the claim for  weekly off  wages  in the sum of Rs’ 6675.84 p. for  one  year,  if calculated for the subsequent years Up to February 16,  1967 the, date of the judgment of the High Court, 938 the    amount   will   aggregate   nearly   Rs.    30,000/-. Similarly,  in respect. of over-time wages, on the basis  of the claim made by the 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 Authorities for the particular periods alone are taken  into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

account,  the total claims will be less than  Rs.  20,000/-. It   is  really  that  claim  which  was  the   subject   of consideration by the High Court in the writ petition.  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 the High Court and establish that as the total amount so arrived at is not less than Rs. 20,000/- ,  Art.  133(1)(b)  can be invoked on the  ground  that  the judgment of the High Court directly or indirectly involves a claim  in respect of property of the value of not less  than Rs. 20,000 /- ? 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 before the Additional Authority was  valued only  at Rs. 18221.25 p. as per the amended claim  at  1-1/2 times  of  wages, though according to  the  respondents  the amount of claim 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. 6675.84 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  noted  that separate  appeals  were filed by different workmen  and  the appellant  in respect of these two different  categories  of claims.   Though the Court of Small Causes disposed  of  all the appeals by a common judgment, nevertheless the claim  in respect  of  over-time  wages  was  dealt  with  apart   and different from the claim for weekly off wages.  Even  before the  High Court, though one writ petition was filed  by  all the  workmen, the claims under two different heads for  over time  wages and weekly off wages were dealt with  separately by  the High Court.  It is not as if that the reasons  given by  the  High Court for upholding the claims  for  over-time wages  automatically resulted in the allowing of  the  claim for-_weekly  off  wages also.  In  fact  entirely  different considerations  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 related to two different sets of claims each having nothing in common with the other. Therefore,  it  was not open to the appellant  to  ask  this Court to proceed on the basis that there was only one single and  common claim dealt with by the High Court in its  judg- ment.  Therefore, there was no question of any consolidation Of  all the claims before the High Court.  In this  view  it will be seen  939 that  even  according  to  the  calculations  made  by   the appellant, the value of the subject matter of the claim with respect  to  over-time  wages can only be the  same  as  was before  the  Additional Authority, namely, Rs.  18221.25  p. which  is less than Rs. 20,000/-.  Similarly, the amount  or value  of the claim which was adjudicated upon by  the  High Court  in respect of weekly off wages was also of  the  same value  as  Rs. 6675.84 p. as was the case before  the  Third Additional  Authority,  which claim is also  less  than  Rs. 20,000/-.  Therefore, considering the matter from this point of view, it is clear that the value of the subject matter of the claim before the High Court in respect of each of  these matters was less than Rs. 20,000/-. The  appellant, as mentioned earlier, has calculated at  the same  rate as claimed for over-time wages and weekly  wages, for  subsequent years upto the date of the judgment  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

High  Court and has stated that so calculated the amount  or value of the subject matter of the claim relating to  weekly off  wages exceeds Rs. 30,000/-.  Similarly, the  amount  or value of the subject matter of the claim of over-time  wages exceeds  Rs.  20,000/-  and  hence it  is  stated  that  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. Mr. M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the respondents,  in support  of  the  application filed for  revocation  of  the certificate  has urged that before the High Court there  was no claim or question arising for   consideration   excepting the  subject matter of overtime 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 for  consideration before either the Authorities, the  Court of  Small Causes or the High Court.  Nor does such  a  claim arise for consideration in the appeal to this Court.  There- fore,  he  pointed out that the judgment of the  High  Court does  not  either directly or indirectly involve  any  claim apart  from what was the subject matter of  dispute  between the  parties.   The  High  Court  not  having  granted   the certificate under Art. 133(1)(a), it follows that the amount or  value of the subject matter of the dispute before it  or on  appeal  to  this Court was not Rs.  20,000/-  or  above. Clause  (c) of Art. 133(1) also stands excluded as the  High Court has not granted the certificate on the ground that the case  is  a fit one, for appeal to this Court,  and  as  Mr. Sorabji, learned counsel for the appellant, has  represented that he is not relying on that clause.  In order to  attract Art.  1  3 3 (1) (b), under which the certificate  has  been granted,  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  of the dispute.  In this case this condition is not satisfied. 940 In support of the above proposition, Mr. Bhandare,  referred us  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  highlights               the  conditions which attract the  application               of  the  two clauses.  Under el. (a)  what  is               decisive  is  the  amount  or  value  of   the               subject.  matter  in the court  of  the  first               instance  and "still in dispute" in appeal  to               the  Supreme Court : under el. (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 claim or  question               raised  respecting  property  other  than  the               subject-matter,  el. (a) will apply; if  there               is involved 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

             than the subject matter of the dispute el. (b)               will apply." From the facts stated in the above decision it is seen  that the appellant therein pleaded oil an alternative; basis that the  claim  in  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 to 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  of  dispute in the appeal and therefore  by  adding interest  to  the 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               (1)  In  order to attract Art.  133(1)(b)  the               property   respecting  which  the   claim   or               question arises, must 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               question   or  claim  raised   ’respecting-the               property  other than the subject-matter,  then               cl. (a) of Art. 133 ( 1) will apply. 941               (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               subject  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  addition  of               interest  or calculation of  further  possible               claims  are all related only to  the  original               subject-matter, which is still in dispute. In  A. V. Subramania Ayyar v. Sellammal(1), under  s.110  of the  Code of Civil Procedure it was pleaded that though  the Subject-matter of the dispute in the court of first instance was  less, 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 Privy Council.   The appellant  added the mesne profits, which according  to  him must be considered to have accrued subsequent to the date of the  original  claim  made  in the  suit.   So  adding,  the appellant  therein  pleaded that the decision  of  the  High Court must be considered as involving a claim to property of over Rs. 10,000/- in value.  Though, if the amount of  mesne profits was added the value was over Rs. 10,000/-, the  High Court  rejected  the plea 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,  the  appeal.   It  was further  field that the decision of the High Court  has  not affected  the  rights  of  the  appellant  ’therein  in  any property  other than the one that was the subject matter  in dispute.   In  this view, it was held that the  judgment  of the,  High Court did not directly or indirectly involve  any question  to any property other than the subject  matter  of dispute.  On this grounds certificates was refused. Mr. Sorabji, learned counsel for the appellant; accepted the principle  that  to  attract Art.  133(1)  (b)the  property, referred  to  therein, must be property in addition-  to  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

other than the subject matter of the dispute.  In fact,  lie cannot but accept this principle as it has been so laid down by   this   Court  in  Chhitarmal  V.  M/S   Sheh   Pannalal Chandulal(2).  The counsel did not rely on Art., 133 ( i)(a) or (e) for the purpose of this appeal.  He jointed out  that as  laid  down by this Court in the  decision,  referred  to above,  the  expression "property" in Art.  133(1)(b)  would also  take in claims regarding money.  He noticed  out  that the appellant in this case is prejudiced by the judgment  of the  High Court as it will have to face recurring  liability in  future at the hands of its workmen, on the basis of  the claims made by them is over time wages and weekly off wages. It is that liability which the appellant will have to face 1. I L.R. 39 Madras 843. (2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 751 --L1061 Sup CI/72 942 and  which has been imposed upon it to its prejudice by  the judgment of the High Court, that is sought to be got rid  of in the appeal to ’this Court.  As the recurring liability or claim  will  be more than Rs. 20,000/- the  matter  squarely falls  under Art. 133(1)(b) and the certificate  granted  by the High Court is correct.  He further pointed out that  it, is  not  necessary  that the judgment of  the  Court  should directly involve other properties, including money.   Clause (b)  of Art. 133(1) will be attracted even if the,  judgment indirectly involves a claim in respect of property or  money of not thin Rs. 20,000/-.  He referred us to the decision in Meghji Lakhamshi and Brothers v. Furniture Workshop(1) where the  Judicial  Committee had to construe Art. 3 (a)  of  the Eastern African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in  Council. 1951.  The latter part of this Article was as follows               "...... or where the appeal involves  directly               or  indirectly  some claim or question  to  or               respecting,  property  or  some  civil   right               amounting to or of the said value or upwards." The  Judicial Committee held that the value referred  to  in the  said Article must be looked, at from the point of  view of the appellant.  It is no doubt true that the value has to be considered from the point of view of the appellant.   The property may also include money.  But it is essential  under Art. 133(1)(b) that the claim must be in respect of property or money which property or money must be different from  the subject  matter of the litigation.  Therefore, the  decision of the Judicial Committee is no, (If much assistance to  the appellant. Mr.  Sorabji, then referred us to the decision of  the  Full Bench  of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt.   Rajah  Kishore v.  Bhaskara Gouta Chorani and others(2) Dealing  with  cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133 (1) the High Court says               "In our opinion, clause (b) of Art. 1 33(1) is                             intended   to  meet  a  situation   es sentially               different from that arising under clause  (a).               Under clause (a) we have to look at the  value               of  the reliefs obtainable in the suit and  in               the appeal.  Under clause (b) we have to  look               at the effect of the judgment appealed against               from  the point of view of the  appellant.   A               thing, is said to be involved in another  when               it  is  a necessary resultant of  that  other.               (Stroud’s  Judicial Dictionary).  The  matters               adjudicated upon in the judgment appealed from               may have far reaching consequences detrimental               to  the  property of the  appellant,  although

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

             they were not comprised in the cause of action (1) [1954] Appeal Cases 80. (2) A. I. R. 1960 Al.  P. 286.  943               of  the  plaintiff and cannot be  regarded  as               being "still in dispute" on appeal." From the facts in that case it is clear that the High  Court was  dealing with the question whether the decision  of  the High  Court  will  have far reaching  effect  on  the  other properties of the appellant therein, though those properties were not the subject-matter of dispute in the appeal.   This decision  in fact emphasises quite rightly that  to  attract cl. (b) of Art. 133(1) one has to look to the effect of  the judgment  sought to be appealed against on other  properties which  are  not the subject matter of dispute  and  are  not comprised as such in the litigation. Similarly, the decision of the Madras High Court in  Commis- sioner  of Income-tax Madras v. S. L. Mathias(1) is also  of no  assistance  to  the appellant.  The facts  of  the  said decision show that the High Court was of the view that there is  a difference of opinion between the High Courts  on  the effect  of the Proviso 2 to S. 4(2) of the  Income-tax  Act, 1922.  The High Court was of the view that "there can be  no doubt that +the question involved is a substantial  question of law", and on this basis granted a certificate of fitness. It  is clear that the High Court granted the certificate  on the-ground  that  there was a substantial  question  of  law involved  in  the appeal and as such it was a  fit  one  for appeal to the Judicial Committee. Mr.  Sorabji then referred us to the decision of the  Madras High  Court  in  G. Appuswamy Chettiar and  another,  v.  R. Sarangapani  Chettiar and others ( 2) In that case the  suit was for a declaratory relief regarding the invalidity of the adoption of a particular person.  ’The certificate was asked for  on  the  ground that the decision  of  the  High  Court involves   directly  or  indirectly  a  claim  or   question respecting  property of the value of Rs. 20.000/- and  more. It  was accepted by the High Court that if leave  to  appeal was  not granted to the petitioners therein, they will  lose an  estate  worth more than Rs. 68,000/- though  the  estate itself  was  not  directly the, subject  matter  of  dispute either in the trial court or the High Court.  The High Court further held that in a suit for a declaration of adoption  a claim  made  by the reversioners to the property  cannot  be considered to be too remote.  It is on this ground that  the certificate  was granted.  It is clear from the judgment  of there  High Court that the final decision of the High  Court in  that  case  did affect the right’s  of  the  petitioners therein  to  properties  of  the  value  of  more  than  Rs. 68,000/-.   It  is on that basis that  the  certificate  was granted under Art. 133(1)(b). In  our opinion, the decisions relied on by Mr.  Sorabji  do not  support his contention that the certificate granted  by the High (1)  A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 352 (2)  (1965) (1) I.L.R. Mad. 361. 944 Court, in the case before us, under Art. 133(1)(b) is proper and valid.  In fact the said decisions clearly bring out the distinction  between  cls. (a) and (b) of Art. 133  (1)  and they  lay  down that only when the judgment or  final  order affects  property  which is not the subject matter  of  the, litigation  that Art. 133(1)(b) apply.  Those decisions  are in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in Chhitarmat v. M/s Shah Pannalal Chandulal(1).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

It  is clear that interest, unless granted’by the decree  or the  trial court, cannot be notionally added to inflate  the value  of  the claim in the appeal so as to make  it  appear that on the date of the judgment of the High Court the value is  not less than Rs. 20,000/-.  On the same  principle,  we have already pointed out that mesne profits, which have  not been  decreed  by the trial court, cannot be  added  to  the original claim made in the suit, so as to enable a party to. plead  that the value in the proposed appeal on the date  of the judgment of the High Court is more than Rs.20,000/-. We  may refer to the decision of the Judicial  Committee  in Moti  Chand and others v. Ganga Parshad Singh and  an  other (2)  where  interest awarded under the decree of  the  trial court was taken into account for the purpose of  considering the value in the appeal before the High Court.  The suit was for  recovery  of a certain amount together  with  interest. The  trial court passed a decree for Rs.  9496/-and  awarded interest  to  the  plaintiff at Rs. 570/- per  year  on  the decreed  amount  until realisation.  By the  time  the  High Court’s decree was made, the amount at issue had reached  to Rs. 10636/-with further contingent increment.  Under s.  596 of  the old Civil Procedure Code, certificate was asked  for from  the  High Court for leave to appeal  to  the  Judicial Committee.  The High Court declined to grant the certificate on the round that the amount or value of the subject  matter of  the  suit  in the court of first instance  was  not  Rs. 10,000/- as required by the ,aid section. though the  amount or  value of the matter in dispute on appeal to Her  Majesty in  Council was above Rs. 10,000/.  No doubt, this  decision is not on the question’regarding matters covered by cl.  (1) of Art. 13’(1).  But we, are only referring to this decision to  show  that interest can be taken into  account  for  the purpose of considering the value in an appeal, provided  the decree itself has awarded interest. We may also refer to the decision of the Judicial  Committee in  Surapati  Roy  & others v. Ram Narayan  and  Mukherji  & others(3).  In that decision the question arose under s. 110 of  the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the  validity of  the certificate granted by the High Court.   Though  the rent  claimed  in the suits was less than Rs.  10,000/-  the High  Court  had  granted a certificate of  fitness  on  the ground that the value of the subject matter (1) [1965] 2 S.C.R.751 (2) 29 Indian Appeals 40. (3) 50 Indian Appeals 155. 945 was  over  Rs.  10,000/-.  The objection  taken  before  the Judicial   Committee   regarding   the   validity   of   the certificate, on the ground that the subject matter was below the appealable value was rejected as follows :               "........   The  subject  matter  in   dispute               relates  to  a recurring liability and  is  in               respect  of a property considerably above  the               appealable  value.   The  certificate  in  the               circumstances is quite in order." It is to be noted that the liability which was being  denied as  due  to the landlord, by way of rent from the  lands  in question was in respect of the properties in question and it was on that basis that the certificate was held to be valid. Both  the above decisions of the Judicial Committee have  no application to the facts of the present case on hand.   ’The principle  that  a claim made by one party and  resisted  by another  is ordinarily the subject matter of the dispute  in the  trial court and continues to be the subject  matter  in the Appellate Courts.  In the case before us the claims  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

over-time wages and weekly off wages before the  Authorities were  for a specified period.  The claims for the  identical periods  were the subject matter in the appeals  before  the Court of Small Causes.  The High Court had also to  consider the correctness of the decision of ’he Court of Small Causes regarding the claims made by the workmen for the  particular periods.   The appellant was not entitled to notionally  add on  to  the  amount originally claimed by  the  workmen  for particular  periods, any further amounts on the ground  that they  must be considered to have accrued due to the  workmen till  the date of the judgement of the High Court.   If  the subsequence  additions  made  to  the  original  claim   are accepted  as correct, then the position would be that if  it is an ordinary civil litigation, the subject, matter of  the suit and its value would vary with the length of time during which  the  suit  may  be pending in  the  Courts.   Such  a position  is not warranted by the provisions of Art.  133(1) as  laid  down  by this Court in  Chhitarmal  v.   M/s  Shah Pannnalal  Chandulal(1).  If in the proposed appeal to  this Court  there  is  no claim  or  question  raised  respecting property,  other than the subject matter of dispute,  clause (a)  of  Article 133(1 ) will apply.  That clause  has  no,, been invoked in this case by the High Court. It  is not possible to accept the contention of Mr.  Sorabji that as the appellant will have to face from its workmen  in future  claims  similar to the one recognised  by  the  High Court,  there is involved a claim or question in respect  of property  of  the value of not less than Rs.  20,000  /-  in addition to or other than the (1) [1965] 2 S.C.R.751 946 subject  matter  of  appeal.   In  the  first  place,   this contention  proceeds on the assumption that the judgment  of the High Court directs talk appeal Lo pay in future  amounts not  less than Rs. 20,000/-.  This assumption  is  basically erroneous,  as there is no such direction given by the  High Court.  The payment of wages as for over-time or weekly  off days will depend upon several circumstances.if  over   time work is not taken, then no payment need be made.If over time work is taken for a lesser time, then the amount to be  paid will also be less. In our opinion, this is not a case where the decision of the High  Court, apart from clearing with the subject matter  in dispute  before it, has tthe effect of affecting the  rights of  the  appellant  regarding  other  properties,  including money.   We may give an instance where a final judgment  may have an impact or affect properties, other than the  subject matter  in  dispute.   In a suit  for  mandatory  injunction directing a defendant to vacate a land, the, subject  matter of  the suit may be only of the value of Rs. 1500/- but  the decree granted by the High Court may result in the defendant therein  being obliged to remove buildings worth  more  than Rs. 20,000/-. so as to give vacant possession of the land in accordance  with the decision of the High Court.  In such  a case,  though  the value of the subject  matter  in  dispute before the High Court may be only Rs. 1500/-, the  judgment, can be considered to involve indirectly a claim or  question respecting  property  (in this case the  buildings)  of  the value  of  no’,- less than Rs. 20,000/-.  Such  a  case  may attract Art. 133(1)(b).  The position before us is  entirely different.   The  judgment  of  the  High  Court  has   only adjudicated upon the subject neither of the specified  claim of  the  workmen  which was, as  mentioned  earlier,  for  a particular period.  That judgment does not involve  directly or  indirectly  apart from the subject matter  of  the  writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

petition, any claim or using respecting property or money of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and more.  In this view, we are of the  opinion that the certificate granted by the High  Court under Art. 133(1)(b) is not valid and proper. In the view that we take that the certificate ranted by  the High Court is not valid and that the appeal brought on  such a  certificate  is not sustainable, we do  not  express  any opinion  on the merits, though arguments were heard  on  the same. As  the certificate issued by ,he High Court under Art.  133 (1) (b) is not proper and valid, the only course oven to  us is to revoke the certificate and set aside the order of  the High Court granting the same.  The result is, the appeal has become unsustainable, as it has been, brought to this  Court on  a  certificate  which,  as, held by  us,  has  not  been properly and validly granted. 947 in  the result, C.M.P. No. 1300 of 1972 is allowed, and  the appeal is held to be not maintainable and as such dismissed. In  C.M.P.  N.-).  1300  of 1972  the  respondents  will  be entitled to costs., In the appeal there will be no order  as to costs. K.B.N.                       Appeal dismissed. 948