{"id":173046,"date":"1995-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995"},"modified":"2018-11-21T22:29:47","modified_gmt":"2018-11-21T16:59:47","slug":"krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995","title":{"rendered":"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 408, \t\t 1996 SCC (1)\t 69<\/div>\n
Author: A S S.<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmad Saghir (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKRISHAN PRASAD GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCONTROLLER, PRINTING & STATIONERY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/10\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nAHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR  408\t\t  1996 SCC  (1)\t 69\n JT 1995 (7)   522\t  1995 SCALE  (6)89\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.Saghir Ahmad. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Fate of  this appeal  hinges on  the  answer  which  we
\nultimately give\t to the\t short question “whether the appeals
\npending in  the Court of the District Judge under Section 17
\nof the\tPayment of  Wages Act, were liable to be transferred
\nto the\tAdministrative Tribunals  under Section\t 29  of\t the
\nAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for disposal on merits or
\nthe jurisdiction  of the Authority under Section 15 and that
\nof the\tDistrict Judge\tunder Section  17 of  the Payment of
\nWages Act  to hear  and\t decide\t Claim\tCases  and  Appeals,
\nrespectively remain undisturbed.”\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  was an  employee of\t the respondent.  On
\nNovember 23,  1987 he  filed an application under Section 15
\nof the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.
\n48,274.50  P.  on  the\tallegations,  inter-alia,  that\t the
\nrespondent  had\t  illegally  withheld\tand  had  also\tmade
\nunauthorised deductions\t from his wages progressively over a
\nconsiderable period of time. This application was registered
\nas Case\t No.407 of  1987, notice  whereof was  issued to the
\nrespondent, who\t after putting\tin appearance, absented on a
\nnumber of dates and ultimately the Authority passed an order
\nthat the  case\twould  proceed\tex-parte  against  him.\t The
\nrespondent filed an application for setting aside that order
\nbut the\t application was  rejected by  order dated  June 23,
\n1988 against  which the\t respondent filed  an  appeal  under
\nSection 17(1)  of the  Payment of Wages Act on July 15, 1988
\nbefore the  District Judge  during the pendency of which the
\nTribunal was  constituted and  consequently, in\t view of the
\nprovisions contained  in Section  29 of\t the Act, the appeal
\nwas transferred\t to the\t Tribunal and  the Tribunal,  by its
\norder dated August 31, 1990, rejected the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  meantime, appellant’s  main  application  under
\nSection 15  of the Payment of Wages Act was allowed by order
\ndated July  20, 1988  for a  sum of Rs. 43,092.50 p. against
\nwhich the  respondent filed an appeal under Section 17(1) of
\nthe Payment of Wages Act in the Court of the District Judge,
\nChandigarh, which  was also  transferred to the Tribunal and
\nthe Tribunal  by its  judgment and  order dated July 4, 1994
\nallowed the  appeal and set aside the order dated 20th July,
\n1988 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
\nIt is  this order  which is  Challenged\t before\t us  on\t the
\ngrounds, inter alia, that the appeal pending in the Court of
\nthe District  Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages
\nAct could  not have been legally transferred to the Tribunal
\nunder Section 29 of the Act and the Tribunal, therefore, had
\nno jurisdiction to dispose it of on merits.\n<\/p>\n
     Administrative Tribunals  have been  constituted  under
\nthe Act\t made by  the Parliament under Articles 323 A of the
\nConstitution for  providing an\texclusive machinery  for the
\nadjudication  or  trial\t of  disputes  and  complaints\twith
\nrespect to  recruitments, as  also conditions  of service of
\npersons appointed to public services and posts, so as to cut
\ndown the  time spent  by public\t servants in  litigation  in
\nordinery courts\t and to\t provide them relief at the hands of
\npersons hearing and deciding service litigation exclusively.\n<\/p>\n
     The vires\tof the\tAct has\t already been upheld by this
\nCourt in S.P. Sampath vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1987 SC\n<\/p>\n
386) with  the finding\tthat with  effect from\tthe date  on
\nwhich the  Tribunals were  constituted, the  jurisdiction of
\nthe High Court in entertaining the Writ Petitions in service
\nmatters came to an end. Whether the above view is correct or
\nnot  and   whether  the\t  abrogation  of   the\tHigh  Court’
\njurisdiction in\t entertaining writs in service matters under
\nArt.226 of  the Constitution amounts to a destruction of the
\nbasic character of the Constitution are questions which have
\nsince been referred to the Constitution Bench hose answer is
\nstill awaited.\n<\/p>\n
     In S.P.  Sampath’s\t case  (supra),\t it  was  held\tthat
\nTribunal was  a substitute  for the  High Court. In order to
\nconfer exclusive  jurisdiction in  service  matters  on\t the
\nTribunal, it has been provided in Section 14 of the Act that
\nthe Tribunal  shall exercise,  on and from the appointed day
\n(1.11.85)  all\t the  jurisdiction,   powers  and  authority
\nexercisable immediately before that day by all Courts except
\nthe  Supreme   Court  in  respect  of  cases  pertaining  to
\nrecruitment and\t matters concerning recruitment to All India
\nservices as  also disputes  relating to\t “service  matters”.
\n(defined in Section 3(q)).\n<\/p>\n
     Section 19\t to 21\tof the\tAct, read together, indicate
\nthat the  jurisdiction of  the Tribunal\t can be invoked by a
\n“person aggrieved”  by\tmaking\tan  application\t against  an
\n“order” made by the Government or a local of other authority
\netc. subject  to the  condition that  all other remedies, if
\navailable, under  the service  rules have been availed of by
\nhim and\t that too  within the period of limitation indicated
\nin Section  21 in  which the starting point of limitation as
\nalso the  period which\twould commence\tfrom that point have
\nbeen specified.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 14\t which confers,\t or, we\t may be permitted to
\nsay,  transfers\t  jurisdiction\tof  all\t the  regular  Court
\nincluding High\tCourts all  over the country to the Tribubal
\nin respect  of “service\t matters”, provides, in its relevant
\npart, as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “14. Jurisdiction, powers\tand authority
\n     of the  Central Administrative Tribunal-
\n     (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided
\n     in this  Act, the Central Administrative
\n     Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the
\n     appointed\tday,  all  the\tjurisdiction,
\n     powers   and    authority\t  exercisable
\n     immediately  before   that\t day  by  all
\n     courts (except  the  Supreme  Court)  in
\n     relation to –<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  recruitment,    and    matters
\n\t  concerning recruitment,  to any All
\n\t  India\t Service   or  to  any\tcivil
\n\t  service of  the Union\t or  a\tcivil
\n\t  post under  the Union\t or to a post
\n\t  connected with  defence or  in  the
\n\t  defence services,  being, in either
\n\t  case, a post filled by a civilian:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  all service matters
\n\t  concerning-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i)  a member of any All-India
\n\t       Service; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) a  person  [not  being  a
\n\t       member of an All-India Service
\n\t       or a  person  referred  to  in
\n\t       clause (c)]  appointed to  any
\n\t       civil service  of the Union or
\n\t       any  civil   post  under\t  the
\n\t       Union; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iii)\t a   civilian\t [not
\n\t       being a member of an All-India
\n\t       Service or  a person  referred
\n\t       to in clause (c)] appointed to
\n\t       any defence services or a post
\n\t       connected with defence,
\n     and pertaining  to the  service of\t such
\n     member,   person\t or   civilian,\t   in
\n     connection with the affairs of the Union
\n     or of any State or of any local or other
\n     authority within  the territory of India
\n     or under  the control  of the Government
\n     of\t India\tor  of\tany  corporation  [or
\n     society]  owned  or  controlled  by  the
\n     Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (c)………………………………”<\/p>\n
     Section 29\t provides for  the transfer  of all  pending
\ncases to  the Tribunal\twhile Section  29A provides  for the
\nfiling of  appeals in  such cases  as  were  decided  either
\nbefore or  after the  establishment of\tTribunals on 1.11.85
\nbefore the Tribunal instead of the regular appellate forum.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 29 and 29A are reproduced below:
\n     “29. Transfer of pending cases-(1) Every
\n     suit or  other proceeding pending before
\n     any court or other authority immediately
\n     before the\t date of  establishment of  a
\n     Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or
\n     proceeding the  cause of  action whereon
\n     it is  based is  such that it would have
\n     been,  if\t it  had  arisen  after\t such
\n     establishment, within  the\t jurisdiction
\n     of\t  such\t  Tribunal,    shall\tstand
\n     transferred  on   that  dated   to\t such
\n     Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that\t nothing in this sub-\n<\/p>\n
     section  shall   apply  to\t  any  appeal
\n     pending  as   aforesaid  before  a\t High
\n     Court.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  Every\t suit\tor  other  proceeding
\n     pending  before   a   court   or\tother
\n     authority immediately  before the\tdated
\n     with effect  from which  jurisdiction is
\n     conferred on  a Tribunal  in relation to
\n     any  local\t  or   other   authority   or
\n     corporation [or  society], being  a suit
\n     or\t proceeding   the  cause   of  action
\n     whereon it\t si based  is  such  that  it
\n     would have\t been, if it had arisen after
\n     the said  dated, within the jurisdiction
\n     of\t  such\t  Tribunal,    shall\tstand
\n     transferred  on   that  date   to\t such
\n     Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that\t nothing in this sub-\n<\/p>\n
     section  shall   apply  to\t  any  appeal
\n     pending  as   aforesaid  before  a\t High
\n     Court.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)  Where immediately  before the\t date
\n     of\t   establishment     of\t   a\tJoint
\n     Administrative Tribunal  any one or more
\n     of\t the   States\tfor   which   it   is
\n     established,  has\t or  have   a\tState
\n     Tribunal or  State Tribunals,  all cases
\n     pending before  such State\t Tribunal  or
\n     State Tribunals  immediately before  the
\n     said  date\t together  with\t the  records
\n     thereof shall  stand transferred on that
\n     dated  to\t such  Joint   Administrative
\n     Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)  Where any  suit,  appeal  of\tother
\n     proceeding stands\ttransferred from  any
\n     court of  other authority\tto a Tribunal
\n     under sub-section (1) sub-section (2),-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  the court  or other  authority
\n     shall, as\tsoon as\t may  be  after\t such
\n     transfer, forward\tthe records  of\t such
\n     suit, appeal  or other proceeding to the
\n     Tribunal; and\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b)  the Tribunal  may, on  receipt
\n     of such  records, proceed\tto deal\t with
\n     such suit,\t appeal or  other proceeding,
\n     so far  as may be, in the same manner as
\n     in the  case  of  an  application\tunder
\n     Section 19\t from  the  stage  which  was
\n     reached before such transfer of from any
\n     earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal
\n     deem fit.\n<\/p>\n
     (5)  Where any  case stands  transferred
\n     to a Joint Administrative Tribunal under
\n     sub-section     (3),      the\tJoint
\n     Administrative Tribunal  may proceed  to
\n     deal with such case from the stage which
\n     was   reached   before   it   stood   so
\n     transferred.\n<\/p>\n
     (6)  Every\t  case\t pending   before   a
\n     Tribunal\t immediately\tbefore\t  the
\n     commencement   of\t the   Administrative
\n     Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1987, being a
\n     case the  cause of\t action whereon it is
\n     based is  such that  it would have been,
\n     if\t  it\thad   arisen\tafter\t such
\n     commencement, within the jurisdiction of
\n     any  court,  shall,  together  with  the
\n     records thereof,  stand  transferred  on
\n     such commencement to such court.\n<\/p>\n
     (7)  Where any  case stands  transferred
\n     to a  court under\tsub-section (6), that
\n     court may proceed to deal with such case
\n     from the  stage which was reached before
\n     it stood so transferred.”\n<\/p>\n
     “29-A.    Provision   for\t  filing   of
\n     certain appeals  – Where  any decree  or
\n     order has\tbeen made  or passed  by  any
\n     court (other  than a  high Court) in any
\n     suit   or\t  proceeding\tbefore\t  the
\n     establishment of  a  Tribunal,  being  a
\n     suit or  proceeding the  cause of action
\n     whereon it\t is based  is  such  that  it
\n     would have\t been, if it had arisen after
\n     such    establishment,\twithin\t  the
\n     jurisdiction of  such Tribunal,  and  no
\n     appeal has\t been preferred\t against such
\n     decree    or     order    before\t such
\n     establishment   and    the\t  time\t  for
\n     preferring such appeal under any law for
\n     the time  being in force had not expired
\n     before such  establishment, such  appeal
\n     shall lie –\n<\/p>\n
\t       (a)  to\t    the\t      Central
\n\t  Administrative   Tribunal,   within
\n\t  ninety days  from the date on which
\n\t  the\t Administrative\t    Tribunals
\n\t  (Amendment) Bill, 1986 receives the
\n\t  assent of  the President, or within
\n\t  ninety  days\t from  the   date  of
\n\t  receipt of  the copy of such decree
\n\t  or order, whichever is later, or\n<\/p>\n
\t       (b)  to\tany  other  Tribunal,
\n\t  within   ninety   days   from\t  its
\n\t  establishment or within ninety days
\n\t  from the  date of  receipt  of  the
\n\t  copy\tof   such  decree  of  order,
\n\t  whichever is later.”\n<\/p>\n
It is  then provided  by Section  33 that the Act shall have
\noverriding effect.\n<\/p>\n
     Transfer of  jurisdiction of  regular Courts to another
\nCourt or  Tribunal has\tnever been  liked by  litigants\t and
\nlawyers as  noticed by\tViscount Simonds  in Smith  Vs. East
\nElloe R.D.C. ( 1956 A.C. 736) who observed that:-\n<\/p>\n
     ”\t  Any one  bred in  the tradition  of
\n     the law, is likely to regard with little
\n     sympathy  legislative   provisions\t  for
\n     ousting the  jurisdiction of  the Court,
\n     whether in order that the subject may be
\n     deprived  altogether  of  remedy  or  in
\n     order that his grievance may be remitted
\n     to some other Tribunal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Since the\tmatter involved\t in this case relates to the
\nouster of  jurisdiction of all regular Courts, including the
\nHigh Court, we shall adopt a rule of interpretation which is
\nmost appropriately  applicable to  the circumstances  of the
\npresent case  and the  only Rule  which can be most suitably
\napplied is  the rule  of  construction\tof  giving  ordinary
\nmeaning to  the various\t expressions used in the legislation
\nand to\tconstrue various  Sections of  the  enactment  as  a
\nwhole, each  provision, [in  the words\tof  Lord  Wright  in
\njennings Vs.  Kelly [1939  (4) All  ER\t464  (HL)]  throwing
\nlight, if  need be,  on the  rest. This\t rule has since been
\naccepted by  this Court in Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
\n(AIR 1959  SC 1012)  in which  Subba Rao, J.(as he then was)
\nspeaking for the Court said:-\n<\/p>\n
     ”\t  The cardinal\trule of\t construction
\n     of the  provisions of  a section  with a
\n     proviso is\t to apply  the broad  general
\n     rule of  construction, which  is that  a
\n     section or\t enactment must\t be construed
\n     as a  whole, each portion throwing light
\n     if need be on the rest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The true  principle undoubtedly  is
\n     that  the\t sound\t interpretation\t  and
\n     meaning of the statute, on a view of the
\n     enacting  clause,\t saving\t clause,  and
\n     proviso, taken  and construed  together,
\n     is to prevail.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Madan  Lal Fakir  Chand Dudhediya Vs. Changdeo Sugar
\nMills Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 1543) Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then
\nwas) observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tfirst  rule  of\t construction
\n     which is  elementary , is that the words
\n     used in  the section must be given their
\n     plain grammatical\tmeaning. Since we are
\n     dealing with  two sub-sections  of S.76,
\n     it is  necessary that  the said two sub-
\n     section must  be construed\t as  a\twhole
\n     “each portion  throwing light,  if\t need
\n     be, on the rest.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Reverting back to Section 14, we may immediately notice
\nthe striking feature that this Section begins with the words
\n“Save as  otherwise expressly  provided in  this Act”  which
\nconstitute  an\textremely  significant\texpression  as\tthey
\npurport to  construed a “Saving Clause”. This expression has
\nalso been  used in  the opening\t part of  Sub-section (3) of
\nSection 14.\n<\/p>\n
     What is intended to be saved is indicated in Section 28
\nwhich,\tincidentally,\talso   purports\t  to   exclude\t the
\njurisdiction of\t almost all  the Courts\t in service matters.
\nSection 14  and Section\t 28  have,  therefore,\tto  be\tread
\ntogether to  find out  the real intent of the legislature as
\nto the extent of jurisdiction retained or excluded.\n<\/p>\n
     The jurisdiction  which is transferred to and vested in
\nthe Tribunal  is the jurisdiction of a the Courts except the
\nSupreme Court which is expressly excluded.\n<\/p>\n
     The “matters”  in respect\tof which this “jurisdiction”
\nis to  be exercised are also indicated in this Section. That
\nis why\tit  is\tprovided  in  Section  19  that\t any  person
\naggrieved by an “order” (defined in the Explanation appended
\nto Sub-section\t(1)  of\t that  Section)\t pertaining  to\t any
\n“matter” within\t the  “jurisdiction”  of  the  Tribunal\t may
\napproach the  Tribunal for  the redressal  of his grievance.
\nWhile Section  19 operates  “subject to\t other provisions of
\nthe Act”, the field of operation of Section 14 is limited by
\nthe use\t of the\t words “save as otherwise espressly provided
\nin this\t Act”. These words control and regulate whole of the
\nSection not  only in  respect of “jurisdiction” but also the
\n“matters” specified  therein. This  constitutes the original
\njurisdiction of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is indicated
\nin Section  29 and 29A of the Act. While all appeals pending
\nin various Courts, except those pending in the high Court on
\nthe  date   from  which\t Tribunal  became  functional  stand
\ntransferred to\tthe Tribunal  by the  force of\tthe Act, the
\nappeals in  all\t cases\twhich  were  decided  prior  to\t the
\nestablishment of  Tribunals, are required to be filed before
\nthe Tribunal,  if they\thad not\t already been filed provided
\nthe  cause  of\taction\ton  which  the\tcase  was  based  is
\ncognizable by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extremely
\nlimited and  was conferred  on\tthe  Tribunal  so  that\t the
\njudgment, if  any passed,  for example, by a Munsif or Civil
\nor Subordinate\tJudge in  a Civil Suit relating to a service
\nmatter (decided\t before the  establishment of  the tribunal)
\nmay be\tchallenged before  the Tribunal notwithstanding that
\nthe judgment  passed in that suit is not covered by the word
\n“order” defined\t in the\t explanation appended to sub-section\n<\/p>\n
(i) of Section 14. Except the appeals, which are transferred
\nto the Tribunal or the appeals which may be filed before the
\nTrubunal in  the above circumstances, no other appeals would
\nlie before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     The “Saving  Clause” or the “Saving Phrase” (not in the
\nsense of  “Repeals and Savings”) divides “jurisdiction” into
\ntwo classes,  namely, “jurisdiction” which is transferred to
\nand vested  in the  Tribunal and “jurisdiction” which is not
\nso transferred\tand is,\t on the\t contrary, saved.  When\t the
\njurisdiction thus became exercisable by the Tribunal, it was
\nprovided by  Section 28\t that no  court shall  exercise\t the
\njurisdiction, powers and authority on and from the date from
\nwhich  such   jurisdiction,  powers  and  authority  becomes
\nexercisable by a Tribunal. It, however, excepts-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  the Supreme Court; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  any  Industrial   Tribunal,  Labour
\n\t  Court\t   or\t  other\t    authority
\n\t  constituted  under  the  Industrial
\n\t  Disputes Act,\t 1947  or  any\tother
\n\t  corresponding\t law   for  the\t time
\n\t  being in force.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is,  therefore, apparent that in spite of Section 14
\nof the\tAct, the  jurisdiction of  the Industrial  Tribunal,
\nLabour Courts  or other\t Authorities, under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes  Acts\t or  Authority\t created  under\t  any  other
\nCorresponding Law  remains unaffected.\tThe original, or for
\nthat matter,  the Appellate  Authority under  the Payment of
\nWages Act  is neither  an Industrial  Tribunal nor  a Labour
\nCourt  nor  are\t they  “Authorities”  under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act,  1947 but\t if the\t Payment  of  Wages  Act  is
\nultimately  found   to\tbe   a\t“Corresponding\t Law”,\t the
\njurisdiction of\t the Authorities  under the Payment of Wages
\nAct would also be saved.\n<\/p>\n
Let us take up this exercise.\n<\/p>\n
     Payment of\t Wages Act,  1936 is  an Act to regulate the
\npayment of wages to certain classes of person employed in an
\nindustry. The  Act was\tamended from  time to  time and\t was
\nultimately amended  in 1982  by Act  38\t of  1982  with\t the
\nfollowing objects and reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Payment\tof  Wages  Act,\t 1936
\n     regulates\tthe   payment  of   wages  to
\n     certain classes  of persons  employed in
\n     industry. It  was enacted to ensure that
\n     the wages\tpayable to  employees covered
\n     by\t the   Act  are\t  dispersed  by\t  the
\n     employers\twithin\tthe  prescribed\t time
\n     limit and\tthat no deductions other than
\n     those authorised  by law are made by the
\n     employers.\t The   Act  applies   proprio
\n     vigore  to\t  the  payment\tof  wages  to
\n     persons employed  in any  factory or  to
\n     persons employed in railway by a railway
\n     administration   either\tdirectly   or
\n     through a\tsub-contractor. Further,  the
\n     State Government are empowered to extend
\n     the  provision   of  the  Act  to\tcover
\n     persons  employed\t in  any   industrial
\n     establishment or  any class  or group of
\n     Industrial establishments\tas defined in
\n     the  Act.\t The  wage   limit  for\t  the
\n     applicability of  the Act\tis Rs.\t1,000
\n     per mensem.  it is proposed to amend the
\n     Act  with\t a  view   to  extending  its
\n     protection to a larger number of persons
\n     and making\t the provisions\t of  the  Act
\n     more effective and beneficial.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     While  the\t Act,  to  begin  with,\t was  applicable  to
\nindustrial establishments  so as  to ensure payment of wages
\nto workmen  or persons\temployed in  an industry  at regular
\nintervels without any unauthorised deduction, the amendments
\nintroduced by  Act 38  of 1982\twidened\t the  scope  of\t the
\noriginal Act as many “other establishments” could be brought
\nwithin its  purview on\ta Gazette Notification issued either
\nby the Central Government or the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2 contains definition of various terms, namely,
\n“Employed person”,  “Employer”,\t “Factory”,  “Industrial  or
\nother establishments”,\t“Railway Administration” and “wages”
\netc.  Almost  all  these  terms\t are  also  defined  in\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act. In  order  to\t understand  whether
\npayment of  Wages Act  is part\tof  the\t legislative  scheme
\ngoverning Industrial  Law, we  would, by way of illustration
\nconcentrate on\t“Wages” and  its recovery  from the employer
\nthrough judicial  process.  The\t definition  of\t “Wages”  in
\nSection 2(vi)  is an  exhaustive definition which is in very
\nwide terms. Its relevant portion is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
     “2(vi).   “Wages” means all remuneration
\n     (whether by way of salary, allowances or
\n     otherwise) expressed  in terms  of money
\n     or capable\t of being  so expressed which
\n     would,  if\t  the  terms  of  employment,
\n     express or\t implied, were\tfulfilled, be
\n     payable to\t a person employed in respect
\n     of his  employment or  of work  done  in
\n     such employment, and includes-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  any remuneration payable under
\n\t  any award or settlement between the
\n\t  parties or order of a Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  any remuneration\t to which the
\n\t  person  employed   is\t entitled  in
\n\t  respect   of\t overtime   work   or
\n\t  holidays or any leave period;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  any  additional\t remuneration
\n\t  payable   under    the   terms   of
\n\t  employment (whether  called a bonus
\n\t  or by any other name);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  any sum\twhich  by  reason  of
\n\t  termination of  employment  of  the
\n\t  person employed  is  payable\tunder
\n\t  any  law,  contract  or  instrument
\n\t  which provides  for the  payment of
\n\t  such sum,  whether with  of without
\n\t  deductions but does not provide for
\n\t  the time  within the\tpayment is to
\n\t  be made;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (e)  any sum\tto which  the  person
\n\t  employed  is\t entitled  under  any
\n\t  scheme framed under any law for the
\n\t  time being in force;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  but does not include –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1)…………………….
\n\t  (2)…………………….
\n\t  (3)…………………….
\n\t  (4)…………………….
\n\t  (5)…………………….
\n\t  (6)…………………….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Under the\tIndustrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  the\tterm
\n“Wages” has been defined in Section 2(rr) as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “2(rr).   “Wages” means all remuneration
\n     capable of\t being expressed  in terms of
\n     money, which  would,  if  the  terms  of
\n     employment,  express  or  implied,\t were
\n     fulfilled, be  payable to\ta workman  in
\n     respect of\t his employment\t or  of\t work
\n     done in such employment, and includes-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  such allowances (including dearness
\n     allowance [20] as the workman is for the
\n     time being entitled to;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) the\t value\t   of\t any\thouse
\n     accommodation, or\tof supply  of  light,
\n     water,  medical   attendance  or\tother
\n     amenity or\t of any\t service  or  of  any
\n     concessional  supply  of  foodgrains  or
\n     other articles;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)     any travelling concession;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) any  commission   payable  on\t  the
\n     promotion of sales or business or both;
\n     but does not include-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)……………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)……………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)……………………………….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If the  “Wages” are not paid within the prescribed time
\nlimit or deductions, other than those authorised by law, are
\nmade by the employers, the employee can recover it under the
\nPayment of  Wages Act  for which  an elaborate machinery has
\nbeen provided  in Section  15 relevant\tportion of  which is
\nquoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
     “15. Claims arising  out  of  deductions
\n     from wages\t or delay in payment of wages
\n     and penalty  for malicious\t or vexatious
\n     claims:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)  The  State   Government   may,   by
\n     notification in  the  official  Gazette,
\n     appoint  [a  presiding  officer  of  any
\n     Labour  Court  of\tIndustrial  Tribunal,
\n     constituted   under    the\t   Industrial
\n     Disputes Act,  1947  (14  of  1947),  or
\n     under any\tcorresponding law relating to
\n     the  investigation\t  and  settlement  of
\n     industrial\t disputes  in  force  in  the
\n     state or] any Commissioner for Workmen’s
\n     compensation  or\tother  officer\t with
\n     experience as  a Judge  of a Civil Court
\n     of as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the
\n     authority to  hear and  decide  for  any
\n     specified area all claims arising out of
\n     deductions from  the wages,  or delay in
\n     payment  of   the\twages\t[of   persons
\n     employed  or   paid  in   that   areal],
\n     including all matters incidental to such
\n     claims:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided  that   where  the\tState
\n     Government considers  it necessary so to
\n     authority for  any\t specified  area  and
\n     may,  by\tgeneral\t or   special  order,
\n     provide   for    the   distribution   or
\n     allocation of  work to  be performed  by
\n     them under this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  Where contrary to the provisions of
\n     this Act  any deduction  has  been\t made
\n     from the wages of an employed person, or
\n     any payment  of wages  has been delayed,
\n     such  person   himself,  or  any;\tlegal
\n     practitioner  or\tany  official\tof  a
\n     registered\t trade\tunion  authorised  in
\n     writing to\t act on\t his behalf,  or  any
\n     inspector under  this Act,\t or any other
\n     person acting with the permission of the
\n     authority\tappointed  under  sub-section
\n     (1), may  apply to\t such authority for a
\n     direction under sub-section (3):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided    that     every\t such
\n     application shall\tbe  presented  within
\n     [twelve months]  from the\tdate on which
\n     the deduction from the wages was made or
\n     from the  date on\twhich the  payment of
\n     the wages\twas due\t to be\tmade, as  the
\n     case may be:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided    further\t  that\t  any
\n     application may  be admitted  after  the
\n     said period  of [twelve months] when the
\n     applicant satisfies  the authority\t that
\n     he had  sufficient cause  for not making
\n     the application within such period.
\n     (3)  When\tany  application  under\t sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     section   (2)    is   entertained,\t  the
\n     authority shall  hear the\tapplicant and
\n     the   employer    of    other    persons
\n     responsible for  the  payment  of\twages
\n     under  Section   3,  or   give  them  an
\n     opportunity of  being heard,  and, after
\n     such further  inquiry (if any) as may be
\n     necessary, may, without prejudice to any
\n     other penalty  to which such employer or
\n     other person  is liable  under this Act,
\n     direct the refund to the employed person
\n     of the  amount deducted,  or the payment
\n     of the  payment of\t such compensation as
\n     the  authority   may  think   fit,\t  not
\n     exceeding ten  times the amount deducted
\n     in the  former case  and [not  exceeding
\n     twenty-five rupees\t in the\t latter,  and
\n     even  if  the  amount  deducted  or  the
\n     delayed  wages   are  paid\t  before  the
\n     disposal of  the application, direct the
\n     payment of\t such  compensation,  as  the
\n     authority may  think fit,\tnot exceeding
\n     twenty-five rupees]:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  a bona fide error or bona fide
\n\t  dispute as to the amount payable to
\n\t  the employed person, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  the    occurrence     of\t   an
\n\t  emergency,  or   the\texistence  of
\n\t  exceptional\tcircumstances,\t such
\n\t  that the person responsible for the
\n\t  payment of  the wages\t was  unable,
\n\t  thought    exercising\t   reasonable
\n\t  diligence, to\t make prompt payment,
\n\t  or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  the failure  of\tthe  employed
\n\t  person  to   apply  for  or  accept
\n\t  payment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4) ……………………………
\n     (4-A) ………………………….
\n     (4-B) ………………………….
\n     (5) ……………………………”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Before proceeding\tfurther, we may point out that there
\nhave been  many local  amendments made\talmost\tby  all\t the
\nStates in the Act but for purposes of the question under our
\nconsideration, will  refer to  the text\t of the\t Central Act
\nwhich is the parent Act.\n<\/p>\n
     A perusal\tof Section  15(1) would\t indicate  that\t the
\nState  Government   has\t to  constitute\t an  “authority”  by
\nappointing either the Presiding Officer of a Labour court of
\nIndustrial  Tribunal   or  any\tcommissioner  for  Workmen’s
\nCompensation or\t a Judge  of a\tCivil Court  or\t Stipendiary
\nMagistrate to  hear and\t decide all  claims arising  out  of
\ndeductions from\t the wages  or delay  in  payment  of  wages
\nincluding all  matters incidental  thereto. If\tan  employee
\ndoes not get his wages in time and its payment is delayed or
\ndeductions are\tmade from  the wages  unauthorisedly, he may
\neither personally  or through  a legal\tpractitioner or\t any
\nofficial of  a\tregistered  Trade  Union  or  any  Inspector
\nappointed under\t the Act,  may,\t apply\tto  the\t “Authority”
\nconstituted  under  the\t Act  and  the\tlatter\tnamely,\t the
\n“Authority”, after  hearing the employer or any other person
\nresponsible for\t payment of  wages, may direct the refund of
\nthe amount deducted or payment of delayed wages, as the case
\nmay be,\t together with\tcompensation as\t indicated  in\tSub-
\nsection(3) of Section 15 without prejudice to the penalty to
\nwhich the  employer or\tthe other person may be liable under
\nthe Act.  The amount  so  awarded  is  recoverable  as\tfine
\nimposed by  a Magistrate  as indicated in Sub-section (5) of
\nSection 15.\n<\/p>\n
     Under section  33 C  of the  Industrial  Disputes\tAct,
\nthere is  an altogether\t different  machinery  provided\t for
\nrecovery of wages etc. It provides as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “33C.     Recovery of  money due from an
\n     employer- (1)  Where any money is due to
\n     a\tworkman\t from  an  employer  under  a
\n     settlement or  an\taward  or  under  the
\n     provisions of  [Chapter V A or Chapter V
\n     B], the  workman himself  or  any\tother
\n     person authorised\tby him\tin writing in
\n     this behalf,  or, in  the\tcase  of  the
\n     death of  the workman,  his assignee  or
\n     heirs  may,  without  prejudice  to  any
\n     other  mode   of\trecovery,   make   an
\n     application    to\t   the\t  appropriate
\n     Government of  the recovery of the money
\n     due  to  him,  and\t if  the  appropriate
\n     government is  satisfied that  any money
\n     is so  due, it shall issue a certificate
\n     for that  amount to  the  Collector  who
\n     shall proceed to recover the same in the
\n     same  manner   as\tan   arrear  of\t land
\n     revenue:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided    that     every\t such
\n     application shall\tbe  made  within  one
\n     year from\tthe date  on which  the money
\n     became  due  to  the  workman  from  the
\n     employer:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided  further   that  any\t such
\n     application may be entertained after the
\n     expiry of\tthe said  period of one year,
\n     if\t  the\tappropriate   Government   is
\n     satisfied\t that\tthe   applicant\t  had
\n     sufficient\t cause\tfor  not  making  the
\n     application within the said period.
\n     (2)  Where any  workman is\t entitled  to
\n     receive from  the employer\t any money or
\n     any benefit  which is  capable of\tbeing
\n     computed in  terms of  money and  if any
\n     question arises  as  to  the  amount  of
\n     money due\tor as  to the amount at which
\n     such benefit  should be  computed,\t then
\n     the question  may, subject\t to any rules
\n     that may  be made\tunder  this  Act,  be
\n     decided by\t such Labour  Court as may be
\n     specified\tin   this   behalf   by\t  the
\n     appropriate Government  [within a period
\n     not exceeding three months].
\n\t  [Provided that  where the presiding
\n     oifficer of  a Labour Court considers it
\n     necessary or  expedient so to do he may,
\n     for reasons  to be\t recorded in  writing
\n     extend  such   period  by\tsuch  further
\n     period as he may think fit.]
\n     (3)  For the  purposes of\tcomputing the
\n     money value  of a\tbenefit,  the  Labour
\n     Court may,\t if it so thinks fit, appoint
\n     a commissioner  who shall,\t after taking
\n     such  evidence   as  may  be  necessary,
\n     submit a  report to the Labour Court and
\n     the Labour\t Court\tshall  determine  the
\n     amount after  considering the  report of
\n     the commissioner and other circumstances
\n     of the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  The decision\tof the\tLabour\tCourt
\n     shall  be\t forwarded  by\t it  to\t  the
\n     appropriate Government  and  any  amount
\n     found due\tby the\tLabour Court  may  be
\n     recovered in  the manner provided for in
\n     sub-section (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  Where workmen\t employed  under  the
\n     same employer  are entitled  to  receive
\n     from  him\t any  money  or\t any  benefit
\n     capable of\t being computed\t in terms  of
\n     money, then,  subject to  such rules  as
\n     may be  made in  this behalf,  a  single
\n     application  for  the  recovery  of  the
\n     amount due\t may be\t made on behalf of or
\n     in\t respect   of  any   number  of\t such
\n     workmen.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Under Sub-section\t(i) of\tSection 33  C the amount for
\nthe recovery  of which\tproceedings may\t be initiated  by  a
\nworkman,  may  also  consist  of  the  amount  due  under  a
\nsettlement or  an award.  This\tmay  be\t compared  with\t the
\ndefinition of  “wages” as  contained in Section 2(vi) of the
\nPayment of  Wages Act,\twhich  also  includes  “remuneration
\npayable under  any Award  or Settlement”. It is obvious that
\nif any\tpart of\t this amount  is withheld  or its payment is
\nunreasonably delayed,  the employee can recover it under the
\nPayment of Wages Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In Town  Municipal Council,  Athani  Vs.  Labour  Court
\n(1969  (2)   Labour  Law  Journal  651),  this\tCourt  while
\naffirming the  decision of  the\t Mysore\t High  Court,  since
\nreported in  1968(1) Labour  Law Journal 779, laid down that
\nquestions relating  to\tpayment\t of  minimum  wages  to\t the
\nemployee at  the agreed rate or any amount for overtime work
\nor for\twork on\t off-days can  be considered and decided not
\nonly under  the Payment\t of wages Act but also under Section
\n33 C(2)\t of the\t Industrial  disputes  Act  1947,  and\tthat
\njurisdiction of\t the Labour  court under  Section 33C (2) is
\nnot in the Payment of Wages Act.\n<\/p>\n
     This decision  has been  cited only  as  an  effort  to
\nindicated that\tclaim for  wages can be entertained not only
\nunder the payment of Wages Act bu also under section 33C (2)
\nof the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the\tcharacter and  function of  the Labour Court
\nunder the  Industrial Disputes\tAct as\talso  the  Authority
\nunder the  Payment of  Wages Act  are similar in purpose and
\nboth are designed to produce the same result particularly as
\nsome of the provisions under both the Act prescribe the same
\nthing to be done.\n<\/p>\n
     The Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947 and  the Payment of
\nWages Act, 1936 are, therefore, “Corresponding Law” qua each
\nother particularly  as both  are part  of  the\tsame  social
\nlegislative canopy  made by  the  Parliament  for  immediate
\namelioration of workmen’s plight resulting from non-payment,
\nor delayed  payment or,\t for that  matter, short  payment of
\ntheir wages.\n<\/p>\n
     The word  “corresponding” is  defined in Shorter Oxford
\nDictionary as  “answering  to  in  character  and  function;
\nsimilar to.”  This meaning  has been  adopted in  Winter Vs.
\nMinistry of  Transport (1972  NZLR 539) in which it has been
\nobserved as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     We\t read  “corresponding”\tin  s.20A  as
\n     including a new section dealing with the
\n     same subject matter as the old one, in a
\n     manner or\twith  a\t result\t not  so  far
\n     different from  the old as to strain the
\n     accepted\t meaning    of\t  the\t word
\n     “corresponding” as\t given in the Shorter
\n     Oxford English  Dictionary –  “answering
\n     to in  character and  function;  similar
\n     to”. The  new [section]  answers to  the
\n     old one… in character and function; it
\n     is similar\t in purpose,  prescribes  the
\n     same thing\t to be\tdone, and is designed
\n     to produce\t the same  result. We hold it
\n     to\t be  a\t“corresponding\tsection”.[See
\n     Words & Phrases 3rd Edition Vol.1]
\n     Our conclusion,  therefore, is  irresistible  that\t the
\n“Authority”, constituted  under section 15 and the Appellate
\nAuthority under Section 17 of the Payment of wages Act, fall
\nwithin\tthe   exception\t indicated  in\tSection\t 28  of\t the
\nAdministrative Tribunal Act and this Act, namely, Payment of
\nWages  Act,   is  positively   covered\tby  the\t connotation
\n“Corresponding Law”  used in that section. consequently, the
\njurisdiction of\t the Authority to entertain and decide claim
\ncases under  Section 15\t of the\t Payment of  Wags Act is not
\naffected  by   the  establishment   of\tthe   Administrative
\nTribunals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned counsel  for the respondent then contended that
\nsince Clause  (b) of Section 2 has been deleted by Act No.19
\nof 1986\t and the  Act has ben made applicable to all persons
\nemployed in  Industrial establishments and factories to whom
\nthe Act,  as originally enacted did not apply, and since the
\njurisdiction of\t all Courts  has come  to be  vested in\t the
\nTribunal, an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages
\nAct cannot be legally filed before a “Court” and, therefore,
\nthe Tribunal was justified in the instant case to dispose of
\nthe appeal  on merits  after receiving\tit on transfer under
\nSection 29  from the  court  of\t the  District\tJudge.\tThis
\ncontention, too, has no substance.\n<\/p>\n
     While deleting  Clause (b) from Section 2 so as to make
\nthe Act\t applicable to\tworkmen etc.,  the Parliament by the
\nsame Amending  Act, namely,  Act No.19\tof 1986,  introduced
\nClauses (a)  and (b)  in Section  28 so\t as to\tpreserve the
\njurisdiction  of  the  Supreme\tCourt,\tthe  Labour  Courts,
\nIndustrial Tribunals  and ,  as we  have already  found, the
\nAuthorities under  the Payment\tof Wages  Act which  we have
\nfurther found  to be  “Corresponding Law” within the meaning
\nof Clause (b) of Section 28.\n<\/p>\n
     it appears\t strange that  although Act has been applied
\nto persons  working in\tfactories etc.,\t the jurisdiction to
\ntry their cases has not been given to the Tribunal. This is,
\nindeed, an incongruity. But then incongruity is the habit of
\nlegislative drafting.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  connection, we  may, refer again to Section 29
\nand 29A as under both the section, the emphasis is on “cause
\nof  action”.   Under  Section  29,  an\tappeal\tshall  stand
\ntransferred to,\t and under  Section 29A,  an appeal  can  be
\nfiled before,  the Tribunal  if the cause of action on which
\n“suit  or   proceedings”  were\tinitiated  would  have\tbeen
\ncognisable by  the Tribunal.  Since on the original cause of
\naction, a claim under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act
\ncould not  have been  made to the Tribunal, the appeal would
\nnot stand  transferred to  nor can  appeal contemplted under
\nSection 17  of the  Payment of Wages Act be filed before it.
\nThe Appellate  Authority is  part of  the  Justice  Delivery
\nSystem constituted  under Section  17 of the Payment of Wage
\nAct.  Its   jurisdiction  will\t not  be   affected  by\t the
\nestablishment of  Administrative Tribunals  particularly  as
\nappeal has  always been\t treated to be a continuation of the
\noriginal proceedings.  Consequently, the  two tier  judicial
\nsystem, original as well as appellate, constituted under the
\n“Corresponding Law”,  like the Payment of Wages Act, are not
\naffected by the constitution of the Tribunals and the system
\nshall continue\tto function  as before, with the result that
\nif any\tcase is\t decided under\tSection 15 of the Payment of
\nWages Act,  it will  not be  obligatory to  file  an  appeal
\nbefore the  Tribunal as\t required by  Section 29A of the Act
\nbut the\t appeal shall lie under section 17 of the Payment of
\nWages Act  before the  District Judge.\tThe pending  appeals
\nshall also, therefore, not stand transferred to the Tribunal
\nunder Section  29 of the Act. If it were a mere matter under
\ngeneral or common law and an appeal arising from a suit in a
\nservice matter decided by the Trial Court and pending in the
\nCourt of  the District\tJudge under  Section 96 C.P.C. would
\nhave ben  the subject  of controversy  whether it  would  be
\ntransferred to\tthe Tribunal  or not,  our answer would have
\nbeen an\t instant “eye”\tbut the matter involved before us is
\ndifferent  as\tit  relates   to  the  exercise\t of  special
\njurisdiction by\t the District  Judge under  Payment of Wages
\nAct, which is a protected jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     Any other\tview will  be destructive  not only  of\t the
\n“Saving Clause”\t in the\t opening part of Section 14 but also
\nof the exceptions carved out in Section 28 together with the
\n“cause of  action” theory contained in Section 29 and 29A of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the respondent has placed reliance
\non  a\tFull  Bench   decision\tof  the\t Chandigarh  Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal\t in Union  of India  Vs. Sarup Chand
\nSingla (1)  [1989 (1)  All India  Services Law\tJournal\t 491
\n(CAT)] in  which it  has been  held that  since the District
\nJudge is a Court within the meaning of Section 14(1) as also
\nSection 28  of the  Act, it  is left with no jurisdiction to
\nhear and  decide the  appeals pending  before it on and from
\nthe  date   on\twhich  the  Tribunals  were  established  as
\njurisdiction,  power  and  authority  of  all  Courts  stood
\ntransferred to\tthe Tribunal. This decision, in our opinion,
\nis erroneous and does not lay down the correct law. The Full
\nBench did  not consider\t the impact  of the  words  Save  as
\notherwise provided in the Act” used in Section 14 nor did it
\nconsider the  significance of  the words “Corresponding Law”
\noccurring in Section 28 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We wind  up this  discussion with\tthe last  words that
\nthough the  Tribunal has ben constituted as a substitute for
\nthe High  Court under  Article 323  A, the Labour Courts and
\nIndustrial  Tribunals\tetc.  over   which  the\t High  Court
\nexercises supervisory jurisdiction continue to function with
\nthe incongruous\t result that  though the  High Court  cannot
\nquash their  judgments, it  must continue to supervise their
\nfunctioning. Let  us await  the decision of the Constitution
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons set out above, we allow the appeal and
\nset aside  the judgment\t and order  dated 04.07.94 passed by
\nthe Administrative  Tribunal, Chandigarh and direct that the
\nappeal papers shall be transmitted forthwith to the District
\nJudge, Chandigarh for disposal on merits.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 408, 1996 SCC (1) 69 Author: A S S. Bench: Ahmad Saghir (J) PETITIONER: KRISHAN PRASAD GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: CONTROLLER, PRINTING & STATIONERY DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/10\/1995 BENCH: AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) BENCH: AHMAD SAGHIR S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & ... on 18 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & ... on 18 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-21T16:59:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-21T16:59:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\"},\"wordCount\":6451,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\",\"name\":\"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & ... on 18 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-21T16:59:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & ... on 18 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & ... on 18 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-21T16:59:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995","datePublished":"1995-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-21T16:59:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995"},"wordCount":6451,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995","name":"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & ... on 18 October, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-21T16:59:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-prasad-gupta-vs-controller-printing-on-18-october-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishan Prasad Gupta vs Controller, Printing & … on 18 October, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}