Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA versus SH. PUNNILAL AND ORS.

Decided
11 October 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 629 · 1996 INSC 1199
Also cited as
  • (1996) 11 SCC 112 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 629, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad made on March 2, 1995 in O.A. No. m~~

p. 629, margin G

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 catergory 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 0.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.

p. 630, margin A

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 Administrative 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 had the relief in the suit by way of declaration for promotion and the declaration having been given and become final, therein 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.

p. 630, margin D

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act stands set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 630, margin G