Appeal No 1577 of 1966
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 25 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 31 of 1963
 I N Shroff for the appellant
The respondent did not appear
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and 1053 raises the question of the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under the  4 of 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act On the licence of the Barnagar Electric Supply and Industrial Company of which respondent 1 was at all material times the managing director having been revoked by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the company s undertaking having been taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board respondent 1 served notices on the company s employees that their services would no longer be requiredas from October 1 1962
Thereupon the appellant on behalf of 20 employees of the company filed an application under sec
152 of the Act to recover from respondent 1 wages for the notice month and retrenchment compensation mounting to Rs 1285360P payable to the employees under sec
25FF of the 
On respondent 1 contesting the claim as also the jurisdiction of the Authority the Authority raised certain preliminary
issues namely 1 whether the said application was maintainable in view of the revocation of the company s licence 2 whether the Authority had jurisdiction to determine the liability of respondent 1 for retrenchment compensation before the amount thereof was ascertained under sec
33C2 of the and 3 whether in view of the services of the workmen not having been interrupted by the said transfer and the terms and conditions of service applicable to them after the said transfer being not in any way less favourable than  before and the said Board as the new employer being liable after the transfer for compensation in the event of retrenchment the employees were entitled to claim any compensation
By his order dated May 21 1963 the Authority held against respondent 1 on the question of jurisdiction
Respondent 1 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and Division Bench of the High Court held that sec
15 of the Act did not apply and that the proper forum for such an application was a Labour Court under sec
33C2 of the 
This appeal challenges the correctness of this order
Mr Shroff for the appellant contended that after the amendment of the definition of wages  in the Act by Act 68 of 1957 and the amended definition having now included any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law
contract or instrument which provides for payment of such sum whether with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made as wages there could be no doubt that the legislature has conferred jurisdiction  on the Authority under the Act to determine compensation payable under sec
25FF of the in an application under sec
152 of the Act and that therefore the High Court Was in error in quashing the order passed by the Authority
Mr Chagla appearing for the 1054 Respondents 1 and 2 in the next appealon the other hand contended 1  that the Authority under the Act was a special Authority with limited jurisdiction that it has to deal only with the subject matters specified in the Act and its jurisdiction must therefore be strictly construed and 2 that the Act and the deal with different subjects provide different tribunals with different jurisdictions and therefore it is not possible to hold that Parliament which enacted both the Acts could possibly have contemplated that claim arising under the should be determined by a tribunal set up under a different Act
On these contentions the first question  which arises for determination is whether compensation payable under sec
25FF of the can fall under the amended definition in sec
2vid of the Act and can be Called wages 
The High Court
thought that it was not but Mr Shroff relied on certain decisions of  this Court to contest that part of the conclusion of the High Court
The  which as enacted in 1947 was a piece of legislation which mainly provided machinery for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes has since then undergone frequent modifications
In 1953 by Act 43of that year Chapter VA consisting of secs
25A to 25J was incorporated providing therein compensation for lay off and retrenchment
It also provided a definition of retrenchment in sec
200
Chapter VA as it then stood did not expressly provide for compensation for termination of service on account of transfer of an undertaking by an agreement or as a result of operation of law or the closure of the undertaking
Consequently in Hariprasad vs Divikar1 this Court held that retrenchment as defined in sec
200 and the word retrenched  in sec 25F meant discharge of surplus labour or staff by the employer for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and did not include termination of services of all workmen on a bona fide closure of an undertaking or on a change of ownership or management thereof
This decision was followed first by an ordinance and then by Act 18 of 1957 incorporating in the Act the present sections 25FF and 25FFF
It will he noticed that both these sections use the words  as if the workman had been retrenched
The intention of the legislature was therefore clear that it did not wish to place transfer and closure on the same footing as retrenchment under sec
25F This is apparent also from the fact that it left the definition of retrenchment in sec 200 untouched in spite of the decision in Hariprasad s case1
The three sections sections 25F 25FF and 25FFF also show  that while under sec
25Fno retrenchment Can be made until Conditions therein set out are Carried
out the other two sections do  not lay down any such conditions
All the three sections however 11957 SCR 121
1055 involve termination of service whether it results in consequence of retrenchment or transfer or closure and notice and compensation in both sections 25FF and 25FFF have been provided for in accordance with the provisions of sec
see Ms Harisingh Mfg Co Ltd vs Union of India1 and Anakapalla Co operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd vs Workmen2
That being the position a workman whose service is terminated in consequence of a transfer of an undertaking whether by agreement or by operation of law has a statutory right under sec
25FF to compensation unless such right is defeated under the proviso to that section
The same is the position in the case of closure under sec
25FFF
Such compensation would be wages as defined by sec
2vid of the Act as it is a sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law  which provides for the payment of such sum whether with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made
 Since sections 25FF and 25FFF do not contain any conditions precedent as in the case of retrenchment under sec
25F and transfer and closure can validly take place without notice or payment of a month s wages in lieu thereof or payment of compensation sec
25FF can be said not to have provided any time within which such compensation is to be paid
It is well established that the words in accordance with the provisions of sec
25F in sections 25FF and 25FFF are used only as a measure of compensation and are not used for laying down any time within which the employer must pay the compensation
It would therefore appear that compensation payable under sections 25FF and 25FFF read with sec
25F would be wages  within the meaning of sec
2vid of the Act
It must however be remembered that though such compensation falls within the definition of wages cases may arise where it would not be a simple question of recovery of wages
In the present case for instance the defence taken by respondent 1 was that he was not the person responsible for payment of compensation and that the right of the workmen was defeated by reason of the proviso to sec
25FF being according to him applicable inasmuch as these workmen were continued in the employment by the said Board the new employer that therefore there had been no interruption in their employment that the terms and conditions of service given to them by the new employer were in no way less favourable than those they
had when the company was the employer and that the new employer was responsible for payment of compensation if any retrenchment took place in future
The question therefore is whether in view of the limited jurisdiction of the Authority under see
152 of the Act it was intended to deal with such questions which in some cases might well raise complicated problems of both fact and law
1  2 1963 Supp
1 SCR 730
L 6Sup CI69 16 1056 While considering the scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under sec
15 of the Act it is relevant to bear in mind the fact that the right to compensation is conferred by the which itself provides a special tribunal for trying cases of individual workmen to whom compensation payable under Ch
VA has not been paid
Section 33C of that Act provides both a forum and the procedure for computing both monetary as well as non monetary benefits in terms of money and further provides machinery for recovery of such claims
In Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Kharbanda1 this Court held that while sub sec
1 of sec
33C applied to cases where any money was due to a workman from an employer under a settlement award or under the provisions of Ch
VA and the amount was already computed or calculated or at any rate there could be no dispute about its calculation or computation sub sec
2 applied to benefits including monetary benefits conferred on a workman under an award settlement etc
 but which had not been calculated or computed and there was a dispute as to their calculation or computation
The Court rejected the contention that sub sec
2 applied only to a non monetary benefit which had to be converted in terms of money
The Court also observed that sec
33C was a provision in the nature of execution and where the amount to be executed was worked out or where it might be worked out without any dispute sub sec
1 would apply but where such amount due to the workman was not stated or worked out and there was a dispute as to its calculation subsec 2 would apply and the workman would be entitled to apply thereunder to have the amount computed provided he was entitled to a benefit whether monetary or non monetary which was capable of being paid in terms of money
In the Central Bank of India Ltd vs Rajagopalan2 this Court held that where the right of a workman was disputed by his employer the Labour Court could go into the question as to whether he had a right to receive such a benefit
Sub sec
3 of sec
33C under which the Labour Court can appoint a commissioner to take evidence for computing the benefit postulates that it has the jurisdiction to decide whether the workman claiming benefit was entitled to it where such right was disputed by the employer
In Bombay Gas Co Ltd vs Gopal Bhiva3 this Court held that the Labour Court could in an application under sec
33C2 go even into the question whether the award under which the workman had made a claim was a nullity
Being in the nature of an executing court it could interpret the award and also consider the plea that the award sought to be enforced was a nullity
It is thus clear that a workman whose claim monetary or otherwise is disputed by his employer can lodge such a claim before a specified Labour Court under sec
33C and obtain an inexpensive and expeditious remedy
The 1 1962 Supp 2 SCR 977
2  3  1057 question then is whether for such a claim the legislature intended to provide alternative remedies both under the and the 
For deciding this question it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of and the scheme of the 
The Act was passed to regulate the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in any factory or by a railway administration or by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration or in any industrial establishment to which a State Government by notification has extended the Act
Section 3 lays down as to who shall be responsible for payment of wages
Section 4 provides for the fixation of wage periods and sec
5 lays down the time within which payment of wages has to be made
Sec 7 provides that wages shall be paid without any deductions except those authorised by the Act and sec
8 provides that no fine shall be imposed on any employed person save in respect of such acts or omissions on his part as the employer with the previous approval of the State Government or the prescribed authority may have specified by notice
Sections 9 to 13 lay down the deductions which an employer is authorised to make and the conditions under which such deduction can be made
Section 13A provides for the maintenance of certain registers and records by the employer and sections 14 and 14A provide for appointment of inspectors under the Act their powers and the facilities to be afforded by the employer to such inspectors
Section 15 1  provides for the appointment of a person to be the Authority under the Act to hear and decide for any specified area claims arising out of a deduction from wages or b delay in payment of wages of persons employed or paid in that area including all matters incidental to such claims
Sub sec
2 provides that Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person or any payment of wages has been delayed such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union or any inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the authority   may apply to such authority for a direction under sub sec
 The first proviso to sub sec
2 lays down a period of limitation of 12 months from the date of deduction or the due date of payment and the second proviso empowers the Authority to admit applications beyond the period of limitation on sufficient cause being shown
Sub sec
3 empowers the Authority to direct refund to the employed person of the amount deducted or the payment of the delayed wages and also empowers it to award compensation specified therein without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer guilty of unauthorised deduction or delay in payment is liable under the Act
Under sub sec
5 of sec
15 the amount 1058 awarded by the authority can be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a magistrate
Section 20 provides for penalty for offences under certain provisions of sections 5 7 8 9 10 and 11 to 13 extending upto Rs 500 
It is explicit from the terms of sec
152 that the Authority appointed under sub sec
1 has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases namely of deductions and fines not authorised under sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed under sec
4 and the time of payment laid down in sec
This is clear from the opening words of sub sec
2 of sec
15 namely where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made or any payment of wages has been delayed
These being the governing words in the sub sec
the only applications which the Authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed under sections 4 and 5 of the Act
Section 152 postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment under sec
3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed
In D Costa vs
BC Patel1 this Court held after considering the scheme of the Act that the jurisdiction of the Authority under sec
15 was confined to deductions and delay in payment of the actual wages to which the workman was entitled and that the Authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to enter into a question of potential wages ie where the workman pleads that he ought to have been up graded as persons junior to him were upgraded and that he ought to have been paid wages on a scale paid to those so up graded
This Court held that the Authority had jurisdiction to interpret the terms of a contract of employment to find out the actual wages payable to the workman where deduction from or delay in payment of such wages is alleged but not to enter into the question whether the workman should have been up graded from being a daily rated worker to a monthly rated workman
In Shri Ambica Mills Co Ltd vs
SB Bhatt2 this Court again examined the scheme of the Act and held that the only claims which could be entertained by the Authority were claims arising out of deductions or delay made in the payment of wages
The Court however observed that in dealing with claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages the Authority inevitably would have to consider questions incidental to these matters but in determining the scope of these incidental matters care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction was not unreasonably or unduly expanded
Equally care must also be taken 1  2 1961 3 SCR 220 1059 to see that the scope of these incidental matters was not unduly curtailed so as to affect or impair the limited jurisdiction conferred on the Authority
The Court declined to lay down any hard and fast rule which would afford a determining test to demarcate the field of incidental facts which could be legitimately considered by the Authority and those which could not be so considered
It is true as stated above that the Authority has the jurisdiction to try matters which are incidental to the claim in question
Indeed sec
151 itself provides that the Authority has the power to determine all matters incidental to the claim arising from deduction from or delay in payment of wages
It is also true that while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to the claim or not care should be taken neither to unduly expand nor curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority
But it has at the same time to be kept in mind that the jurisdiction under sec
15 is a special jurisdiction
The Authority is conferred with the power to award compensation over and above the liability for penalty of fine which an employer is liable to incur under sec
The question therefore is whether on the footing that compensation payable under sections 25FF and 25FFF of the being wages within the meaning of sec
2vid of the Act a claim for it on the ground that its payment was delayed by an employer could be entertained under sec
152 of the Act
In our view it could not be so entertained
In the first place the claim made in the instant case is not a simple case of deductions having been unauthorisedly made or payment having been delayed beyond the wage periods and the time of payment fixed under sections 4 and 5 of the Act
In the second place in view of the defence taken by Respondent 1 the Authority would inevitably have to enter into questions arising under the proviso to sec
25FF viz whether there was any interruption in the employment of the workmen whether the conditions of service under the Board were any the less favourable than those under the company and whether the Board as the new employer had become liable to pay compensation to the workmen if there was retrenchment in the future
Such an inquiry
would necessarily be a prolonged inquiry involving questions of fact and of law
Besides the failure to pay compensation on the ground of such a plea cannot be said to be either a deduction which is unauthorised under the Act nor can it fall under the class of delayed wages as envisaged by sections 4 and 5 of the Act
It may be that there may conceivably be cases of claims of compensation which are either admitted or which cannot be disputed which by reason of its falling under the definition of wages the Authority may have jurisdiction to try and determine
But we do not think that a claim for compensation under sec
25FF which is denied by the employer on the ground that it 1060 was defeated by the proviso to that section of which all the conditions were fulfilled is one such claim which can fall within the ambit of sec
152
When the definition of wages was expanded to include cases of sums payable under a contract instrument or a law it could not have been intended that such a claim for compensation which is denied on grounds which inevitably would have to be inquired into and which might entail prolonged inquiry into questions of fact as well as law was one which should be summarily determined by the Authority under sec
Nor could the Authority have been intended to try as matters incidental to such a claim questions arising under the proviso to sec
In our view it would be the Labour Court in such cases which would be the proper forum which can determine such questions under sec
33C2 of the which also possesses power to appoint a commissioner to take evidence where question of facts require detailed evidence
Mr Shroff however drew our attention to the decision in Uttam Chand vs Kartar Singh1 a decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab taking a view contrary to the one which we are inclined to take
But that decision contains no reasons and is therefore hardly of any assistance
In the result we agree with the High Court that the Authority had no jurisdiction under sec
152 of the Act to try these applications
The appeal consequently must fail and is dismissed
But we make no order as to costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The State Electricity 
Board revoked the licence of a company and took over the undertaking
The 1st respondent who was the director of the company served notices on the employees that their services would not be required
Thereupon the appellant filed an application under section 152 of the  on behalf of the employees for recovering from the it respondent wages for the notice month and retrenchment compensation under section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act
The 1st respondent contested the claim as well as the jurisdiction of the authority under the to deal with the application on the ground that he was not the person responsible for payment of com pensation and that the right of the workmen was defeated by reason of the proviso to section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act because there was no interruption in their employment and the new employer the Electricity Board was responsible for payment of the compensation
But the Authority held against the 1st respondent
The 1st respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court held that section 15 of the Act did not apply and that the proper forum for such an application was the Labour Court under section 33C2 of the 
In appeal to this Court on the questions 1 Whether compensation payable under section 25FF of the can fall under the amended definition of wages in section 2vid of the payment of Wages Act as it is a sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law  which provides for the PaYment of such sum whether with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made  and 2 Whether the authority under section 15 of the had jurisdiction to entertain the application HELD 1 The three sections namely section 25F introduced into the  by Act 43 of 1951 and sections 25FF and 25FFF incorporated by Act 18 of 1957 involve termination of service in consequence of retrenchment transfer and closure respectively
In sections 25FF and 25FFF notice and compensation have been provided for in accordance with the provisions of section 25F 
These words are used only as a measure of compensation and are not used for laying down any time within which the employer must pay compensation
Since section 25FF unlike section 25F does not contain any conditions precedent it can be said not to have provided any time within which such compensation is to be paid
Therefore the compensation payable under section 25FF read with section 25F of the would be wages within the meaning of section 2 vid of the Payment of
Wages Act
1055 C E 1052 Ms Hatisingh Mfg Co Ltd vs Union of India  and Anakapalla Co operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd vs Workmen 1963 Supp 1 SCR 730 followed
2 The words where
contrary to the provisions of the Act in section 152 of the being the governing words the Authority appointed under section 151 has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases namely of deductions and fines not authorised under sections 7 to 13 of
the and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed under section 4 and time in payment laid down in section 5
Section 151 provides that the Authority has the power to determine all matters incidental to the claim arising from deductions from or delay in payment of wages but while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to the claim or not
care should be taken neither to unduly expand or curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority because the jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction
Section 152 postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment under section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed
1058 B D In the present case a the claim was not a simple
case of deductionions having been unauthorisedly made or payment having been delayed beyond the wage periods or the time of payment fixed under sections 4 and 5 of the Act b In view of the defence taken by the 1st respondent the failure to pay compensation did not fall under sections 4 and 5 of the Act and c The claim for compensation denied by the employer in the circumstance could not fall within the ambit of section 152
1059 H It could not have been intended that such matters could be tried by the Authority under the Act as matters incidental to the claim of compensation under section 25FF
The proper forum would be the Labour Court which can decide such questions under section 33C2 of the  since such court can go up into those matters fully expeditiously and without expense
1060 C Punjab National Bank Ltd vs Kharbanda 1962 Supp 2 SCR 977 Central Bank of India Ltd vs Rajagopalan   Bombay Gas Co Ltd vs Gopal Bhiva   D Costa vs BC Patel 1955 1 SCR 1353 and Shri Ambica Mills Co Ltd vs 5
B Bhatt   referred to