Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether compensation payable under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 falls within the definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and whether a disputed claim for such compensation can be entertained by the Authority under Section 15(2) of that Act.
Analysis: The amended definition of wages was wide enough to include sums payable on termination of employment under a law that provides for such payment without prescribing the time of payment, and compensation under Section 25FF was treated as falling within that description. But the jurisdiction under Section 15(2) was confined to unauthorised deductions and delayed payment of wages that are already due and not genuinely disputed. The Authority's power extended only to incidental questions necessary to decide such claims, and it could not be expanded to cover a contested claim requiring investigation into the proviso to Section 25FF, including questions about continuity of employment, comparative service conditions, and the new employer's liability. Such matters involved a prolonged enquiry of fact and law and were properly within the Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Conclusion: A disputed claim for retrenchment compensation under Section 25FF could not be determined by the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; the proper forum was the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.