http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI PUNNILAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the   Central Administrative  Tribunal,  Allahabad  made  on March 2, 1995 in O.A. No.617 of 1990.      The admitted  position is that while the respondent was working as  a Shunter  in 1980  he had  filed a  civil  suit bearing  No.329/83  in  the  court  of  Additional  District Munsif,  Allahabad  for  declaration  that  the  defendants, their agents  and  servants  be  directed  to  consider  his promotion to  the category of Driver ‘C’ in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560 from December 10,1980 when his immediate juniors were promoted to that category of employees. The decree came to be passed by the trial Court on March 24, 1984.On appeal, the Additional District Judge Allahabad confirmed it on July 18, 1985. In compliance thereof, the respondent was promoted as Driver  ‘C’ on  June 10, 1986. Thereafter, the respondent filed the  application under  Section 15  of the  Payment of Wages Act on July 8, 1986. The prescribed Authority directed by order  dated December  7, 1988 payment of back-wages in a sum of Rs.30,220/- The Union of India filed an appeal before the  Additional   District  judge   which   was   dismissed. Thereafter, the  O.A. was  filed in  Central  Administrative Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order When the matter  had come  Up for  hearing notice  was   directed subject to  the appellant’s  depositing a  sum of Rs.5,000/- towards  the  legal  expenses  incurred  by  the  respondent Pursuant  thereto the amount came to be deposited.      It is  contended by  Mr Dhruv Mehta learned counsel for the respondent,  that since the prescribed Authority and the appellate Authority  under the  Payment of Wages act are not the authorities  subordinate to the Administration Tribunal, the  O.A.   is  not  maintainable.  We  find  force  in  the contention. But,  nonetheless, the  material  question  that arises for consideration is  whether the authority under the Payment of  Wages Act  has the jurisdiction under Section 15 of the  Act to  compute  back  wages  on  promotion  of  the respondent as  Driver ‘C’.  Admittedly, when  the respondent

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

had the  relief in  the  suit  by  way  of  declaration  for promotion and  the declaration  having been given and become final there  in the respondent had not sought any relief for payment of back-wages. Consequently, by operation of Order 2 Rule 2  of the  Code of  Civil Procedure  the respondent  is debarred to  claim the  relief of  back-wages. The authority under the  Payment of  Wages Act, therefore, has no inherent jurisdiction in  the matter   to  entertain  the  claim  for payment of back-wages and for grant of the order.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the authority under  the Payment  of Wages Act stands set aside. No costs.