Case: Shri Ambica Mills Co., Ltd Vs. Shri S. B. Bhatt And Another

connected with the problem of wages as defined under S. 2 (vi) that it would be unreasonable to exclude the decision of such a question from the jurisdiction of the authority under S. 15. If a contract of employment is admitted and there is a dispute about the construction of its terms, that obviously falls within S. 15 of the Act. If that is so, what is the difference in principle where a contract is admitted, its terms are not in dispute, and the only point in dispute is which of the two subsisting contracts applies to the particular employee in question. If the appellants argument were to prevail it would lead to this anomalous position that if a general contract of employment provides for payment of wages to different categories of employee and describes the said categories by reference to the duties discharged by them, none of the employees can ever avail himself of the speedy remedy provided by S. 15 of the Act. In such a case every time a dispute may arise about the duties assigned to a particular employee before his wages are determined. In our opinion, to place such an artificial limitation on the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority by S. 15 is wholly unreasonable. That is the view taken by the High Court in the present case and we see no reason to differ from it.14. The question about the nature and scope of the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority under S. 15 has been considered by this Court in the case of A. V. DCosta v. B. C. Patel, 1955-1 SCR 1353 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 412 ). In that case the scheme of the Act has been examined by Sinha, J., as he then was, who spoke for the majority view, and it has been held that "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 wages scheme had been recognised and given effect to, that would not be a matter within the ambit of the authoritys 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 Court took the view that the employees complaint in that case fell within the latter illustration. It would thus be seen that according to this decision the authority has jurisdiction to determine what the terms of contract between the parties are, and if the terms of the contract are admitted and the only dispute is whether or not a particular employee falls within one category or another, that would be incidental to the decision of the main question as to what the terms of the contract are, and that precisely is the nature of the dispute between the parties in the present case.15. The learned Attorney-General has relied very strongly on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Anthony Sabastin Almeda v. R. M. T. Taylor, 58 Bom LR 899 : (AIR 1956 Bom 737 ). In that case the employer and the employee went before the Court on the basis of different contracts and the Court held that it was not within the jurisdiction of the authority to decide which of the two contracts held the field, which of them was subsisting and under which of them of the employer was liable to pay wages. It would be clear from the facts in that case that two rival contracts were pleaded by the parties, according to whom only one contract was subsisting and not the other, and so the question for decision was which contract was really subsisting. We do not propose to express any opinion on the correctness of the view taken by the Bombay High Court on this question. All we are concerned to point out is that in the present appeal the dispute is substantially different. Both contracts admittedly are subsisting. The only point of dispute is : do the three workmen fall within the category of cut-looker or do they not ? If they do then Cl. 5 applies; if they do not the Award will come into operation. That being so, we do not see how the decision in Almedas case, 58 Bom LR 899 : (AIR 1956 Bom 737 ) can really assist the appellant.16. In this connection we may point out that it is common ground that in Ahmedabad textile mills do not have a class of employees called cut-lookers as in Bombay. The work of cut-looking along with other kind of work is done by bleach-folders and other folders. That was the finding made by the authority on an earlier occasion when Punamchand and Vishnuprasad had moved the authority under S. 15 of the Act. The learned Attorney-General has strenuously contended that it is unfair to give the same pay to the three workmen who are doing the work of cut-lookers only for a part of the time and were substantially doing the work of bleach-folders; that however, has no relevance in determining the present dispute. The only point which calls for decision is whether or not the work done by the three respondents takes them within the category of cut-lookers specified under Cl. 5, and as we have already pointed out, on an earlier occasion the authority has found in favour or two of the three respondents when it held that they were folders doing cut-looking. If the said finding amounts to res judicata it is in favour of the two respondents and not in favour of the appellant; that is why the learned Attorney-General did not seriously dispute the correctness of the decision of the High Court on the question of res judicata.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]in our opinion, the error committed by the appellate authority was of such a manifest character that the High Court was justified in correcting the said error by the issue of a writ of certiorari. The question involved in the decision of the dispute is not so much of construction of the document as of giving effect to the plain terms of the document. If Cl. 5 expressly provides for employees not falling under Cl. 2, and if that intention is clarified by the list of designations which fall under Cl. 5 and yet the appellate authority reads that clause as subject to Cl. 2, that must be regarded as an error patent on the face of the record. It is not a case where two alternative conclusions are possible; it is a case of plain misreading of the two provisions ignoring altogether the very object with which the two separate provisions were made. In or opinion, therefore, the contention raised by the learned Attorney-General that by issuing the writ the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction is not well founded.10. That takes us to the second, and in fact the principal contention which has been seriously argued before us by the learned Attorney-General. He urged that the applications made by the respondents Union on behalf of the three employees were incompetent under S. 15 of the Act and the authority exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining them. It is true that this point was not specifically urged before the authority, but it appears to have been argued before the appellate authority and the High Court and it is this contention which raises the problem of construing S. 15 of the Act. The case for the appellant is that the jurisdiction conferred on the authority under S. 15 is a limited jurisdiction and it would be unreasonable to extend it on any inferential ground or by implication.11. The scheme of the Act is clear. The Act was intended to regulate the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in industry, and its object is to provide for a speedy and effective remedy to the employees in respect of their claims arising out of illegal deductions or unjustified delay made in paying wages to them. With that object S. 2 (vi) of the Act has defined wages. Section 4 fixes the wage period. Section 5 prescribes the time of payment of wages; and S. 7 allows certain specified deductions to be made. Section 15 confers jurisdiction on the authority appointed under the said section to hear and decide for any specified area claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area. It is thus clear that the only claims which can be entertained by the authority area claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages. The jurisdiction thus conferred on the authority to deal with these two categories of claims is exclusive, for S. 22 of the Act provides that matters which lie within the jurisdiction of the authority are excluded from the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. Thus in one sense the jurisdiction conferred on the authority is limited by S. 15, and in another sense it is exclusive as prescribed by S. 22.12. 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 the said matters. In determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdictions is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to affect or impair the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority. While considering the question as to what could be reasonably regarded as incidental questions let us revert to the definition of wages prescribed by S. 2 (vi). Section 2(vi), as it then stood provided, inter alia, that 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 fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and it includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment. It also provided that the word "wages" did not include five kinds of payments specified in clauses (a) to (e). Now, if a claim is made by an employee on the ground of alleged illegal deduction or alleged delay in payment of wages several relevant facts would fall to be considered. Is the applicant an employee of the opponent ?; and that refers to the subsistence of the relation between the employer and the employee. If the said fact is admitted, then the next question would be : what are the terms of employment ? Is there any contract of employment in writing or is the contract oral ? If that is not a point of dispute between the parties then it would be necessary to enquire what are the terms of the admitted contract. In some cases a question may arise whether the contract which was subsisting at one time had ceased to subsist and the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end at the relevant period. In regard to an illegal deduction a question may arise whether the lockout declared by the employer is legal or illegal. In regard to contract of service sometimes parties may be at variance and may set up rival contracts, and in such a case it may be necessary to enquire which contract was in existence at the relevant time. Some of these question have in fact been the subject-matter of judicial decisions. (Vide : A. R. Sarin v. B. C. Patil, 53 Bom LR 674 : (AIR 1951 Bom 423  ); Vishwanath Tukaram v. General Manager, Central Railway, 59 Bom LR 892 : (AIR 1958 Bom 111  ) (FB) and Sri Umaid Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Pali, 1960-2 Lab LJ 364 (Raj); but we do not propose to consider these possible questions in the present appeal, because, in our opinion, it would be inexpedient to lay down any hard and fast or general rule which would afford a determining test to demarcate the field of incidental facts which can be legitimately considered by the authority and those which cannot be so considered. We propose to confine our decision to the facts in the present case.13. What are the facts in the present case ? The relationship of employer and employee is not in dispute. It is admitted that the three workmen are employed by the appellant, and do the work of bleach-folders. These folders are classified into Uttarnars and Chadhavnars. Indeed, the items of work assigned to these categories of folders are admitted. The appellant contends that the employment of the three workmen is governed by the Award which is in operation, whereas the respondent Union contends that they are governed by Cl. 5 of the subsequent agreement. It is common ground that both the Award and the agreement are in operation in respect of the persons governed respectively by them, so that it is not disputed by the appellant that the persons who are specified by their designation under Cl. 5 would be entitled to the benefit of the said clause and would not be governed by the Award. If an employee is called a cut-looker by any mill he would naturally fall under Cl. 5; in other words, all the specified categories of employees named by designation in that clause would not be governed by the Award though at one stage they were treated as operatives but they would be governed by Cl. 5 of the agreement; and if a person bearing that designation applied under S. 15 of the Act his application would be competent. The appellants argument, however, is that when the last part of Cl. 5 refers to other employees "who have not been included above but who can properly fall under the above category" no designation is attached to that class, and in such a case it would be necessary to enquire whether a particular employee can properly fall under the said category, and that, it is urged, means that such an employee cannot apply under S. 15 but must go to the industrial court under the ordinary industrial law. Thus the controversy between the parties lies within a very narrow compass. An employee designated as a cut-looker can apply under S. 15 and obtain relief from the authority; an employee not so designated but falling under the said category by virtue of the work assigned to him, it is said, cannot apply under S. 15 because the authority cannot deal with the question as to whether the said employee properly falls under the said category or not. In our opinion, on these facts, the question as to whether a particular employee is an operative falling under the Award or one who is above an operative and below the clerk falling under Cl. 5 is a question which is so intimately and integrally connected with the problem of wages as defined under S. 2 (vi) that it would be unreasonable to exclude the decision of such a question from the jurisdiction of the authority under S.If a contract of employment is admitted and there is a dispute about the construction of its terms, that obviously falls within S. 15 of the Act. If that is so, what is the difference in principle where a contract is admitted, its terms are not in dispute, and the only point in dispute is which of the two subsisting contracts applies to the particular employee in question. If the appellants argument were to prevail it would lead to this anomalous position that if a general contract of employment provides for payment of wages to different categories of employee and describes the said categories by reference to the duties discharged by them, none of the employees can ever avail himself of the speedy remedy provided by S. 15 of the Act. In such a case every time a dispute may arise about the duties assigned to a particular employee before his wages are determined. In our opinion, to place such an artificial limitation on the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority by S. 15 is wholly unreasonable. That is the view taken by the High Court in the present case and we see no reason to differ from it.14. The question about the nature and scope of the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority under S. 15 has been considered by this Court in the case of A. V. DCosta v. B. C. Patel, 1955-1 SCR 1353   : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 412  ). In that case the scheme of the Act has been examined by Sinha, J., as he then was, who spoke for the majority view, and it has been held that "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 wages scheme had been recognised and given effect to, that would not be a matter within the ambit of the authoritys 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 Court took the view that the employees complaint in that case fell within the latter illustration. It would thus be seen that according to this decision the authority has jurisdiction to determine what the terms of contract between the parties are, and if the terms of the contract are admitted and the only dispute is whether or not a particular employee falls within one category or another, that would be incidental to the decision of the main question as to what the terms of the contract are, and that precisely is the nature of the dispute between the parties in the present case.15. The learned Attorney-General has relied very strongly on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Anthony Sabastin Almeda v. R. M. T. Taylor, 58 Bom LR 899 : (AIR 1956 Bom 737  ). In that case the employer and the employee went before the Court on the basis of different contracts and the Court held that it was not within the jurisdiction of the authority to decide which of the two contracts held the field, which of them was subsisting and under which of them of the employer was liable to pay wages. It would be clear from the facts in that case that two rival contracts were pleaded by the parties, according to whom only one contract was subsisting and not the other, and so the question for decision was which contract was really subsisting. We do not propose to express any opinion on the correctness of the view taken by the Bombay High Court on this question. All we are concerned to point out is that in the present appeal the dispute is substantially different. Both contracts admittedly are subsisting. The only point of dispute is : do the three workmen fall within the category of cut-looker or do they not ? If they do then Cl. 5 applies; if they do not the Award will come into operation. That being so, we do not see how the decision in Almedas case, 58 Bom LR 899 : (AIR 1956 Bom 737  ) can really assist the appellant.16. In this connection we may point out that it is common ground that in Ahmedabad textile mills do not have a class of employees called cut-lookers as in Bombay. The work of cut-looking along with other kind of work is done by bleach-folders and other folders. That was the finding made by the authority on an earlier occasion when Punamchand and Vishnuprasad had moved the authority under S. 15 of the Act. The learned Attorney-General has strenuously contended that it is unfair to give the same pay to the three workmen who are doing the work of cut-lookers only for a part of the time and were substantially doing the work of bleach-folders; that however, has no relevance in determining the present dispute. The only point which calls for decision is whether or not the work done by the three respondents takes them within the category of cut-lookers specified under Cl. 5, and as we have already pointed out, on an earlier occasion the authority has found in favour or two of the three respondents when it held that they were folders doing cut-looking. If the said finding amounts to res judicata it is in favour of the two respondents and not in favour of the appellant; that is why the learned Attorney-General did not seriously dispute the correctness of the decision of the High Court on the question of res judicata.