TMI Blog1958 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arrangement under which he was supplying news to the Hindu. He returned to India in July 1956, and requested the petitioner to reconsider its decision; but the petitioner did not think that any case for reconsideration had been made out. Thereupon the first respondent made an application to the Labour Minister of the State of Bombay under s. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Act 45 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On receiving this application the State of Bombay nominated Sri M. R. Meher, I.C.S. (Retired), second respondent, as the authority under s. 17 of the Act for the purpose of enquiry into the first respondent's application and requested him to examine the claim made by the first respondent and, in case he was satisfied that any money was due, to issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector of Bombay for further action as provided under s. 17. A copy of the application was served on the petitioner by order of the second respondent; and a covering letter addressed to the petitioner called upon him to file his written statement in reply to the first respondent's claim. 2. By his ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed restraining the second respondent from exercising any powers under s. 17 of the Act and proceeding with the enquiry into the application filed by the first respondent and forwarded to him by the State Government and issued him a certificate. The other relief claimed is that this Court should be pleased to order and direct that s. 17 of the act is ultra vires and void on the grounds set out in the petition. 5. It would be necessary and convenient to construe s. 17 of the Act first and determine its true scope and effect. The larger question about the vires of this Act and validity of the decision of the Wage Board set up by the Central Government under s. 8 of the Act have been considered by us in the several petitions filed by several employers in that behalf before this Court. We have held in those petitions that, with the exception of s. 5(1)(a)(iii) which deals with the payment of gratuity to employees who voluntarily resign from service, the rest of the Act is valid. That is why the question about the vires of s. 17 need not be considered in the present petition over again. The main point which remains to be considered, however, is : Does s. 17 constitute the State Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competent authority or the Court of the amount due to the employee from his employer. It is only if and after the amount due to the employee has been duly determined that the stage is reached to recover that amount and it is at this stage that the employee is given the additional advantage provided by s. 17 without prejudice to any other mode of recovery available to him. According to this view, the State Government or the authority specified by the State Government has to hold a summary enquiry on a very narrow and limited point : Is the amount which is found due to the employee still due when the employee makes an application under s. 17, or, has any amount been paid, and, if yes, how much still remains to be paid ? It is only a limited enquiry of this type which is contemplated by s. 17. Within the scope of the enquiry permitted by this section are not included the examination and decision of the merits of the claim made by the employee. When the section refers to the application made by the employee for the recovery of the money due to him, it really contemplates the stage of execution which follows the passing of the decree or the making of an award or order by an appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an enquiry. The fact that the legislature has enacted s. 11 in regard to the Wage Board but has not made any corresponding provision in regard to the State Government or the specified authority under s. 17 lends strong corroboration to the view that the enquiry contemplated by s. 17 is a summary enquiry of a very limited nature and its scope is confined to the investigation of the narrow point as to what amount is actually due to be paid to the employee under the decree, award, or other valid order obtained by the employee after establishing his claim in that behalf. We are reluctant to accept the view that the legislature intended that the specified authority or the State Government should hold a larger enquiry into the merits of the employee's claim without conferring on the State Government or the specified authority the necessary powers in that behalf. In this connection, it would be relevant to point out that in many cases some complicated questions of fact may arise when working journalists make claims for wages against their employers. It is not unlikely that the status of the working journalist, the nature of the office he holds and the class to which he belongs m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry into the claim is contemplated by the Labour Court, and it is only after the Labour Court has decided the matter that the decision becomes enforceable under s. 33C(1) by a summary procedure. 13. It is true that, in the present case, the Government of Bombay has specified the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act and the Industrial Disputes Act as specified authorities under s. 17 to deal with applications of newspaper employees whose wages are less than ₹ 200 per month or more respectively; but there can be no doubt that, when the second respondent entertained the first respondent's application, he was acting as the specified authority under s. 17 and not as an industrial tribunal. It is clear that, under s. 17, the State Government would be entitled to specify any person it likes for the purpose of holding an enquiry under the said section. The powers of the authority specified under s. 17 must be found in the provisions of the Act itself, and they cannot be inferred from the accidental circumstances that the specified authority otherwise is a member of the industrial tribunal; since there is no provision in the Act which confers on the specified authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is : What would be the proper order to make on the present petition in view of our conclusion that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent's application ? The present petition purports to invoke our jurisdiction under Art. 32 of the Constitution and it was a valid and competent petition is so far as it challenged the vires of s. 17 itself, but, once s. 17 is held to be valid and in order, the competence of the petition under Art. 32 is naturally open to serious jeopardy. No question about the fundamental rights of the petitioner is involved and his grievance against the order passed by the second respondent cannot be ventilated by a petition under Art. 32. This position is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, argued that, if we construe s. 17 in his favour and hold that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the first respondent application, his purpose would be effectively served even though technically his petition may ultimately be dismissed on the ground that it is not competent under Art. 32 of the Constitution. In our opinion, there is considerable force in this contention. We would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
