Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1969 (10) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt's appeal from the order of the learned City Magistrate, Jhansi, made on an application presented by the respondents under s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act IV of 1936. The City Magistrate was the "'authority" appointed under s. 15 and the district court was the court of appeal under s. 17 of the said Act. The respondents through the Assistant Secretary of the National Railway Mazdoor Union Work-shop Branch, Jhansi had asserted in their application under s. 15 that they were workers within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act (63 of 1948) and complained that they were denied wages for overtime work done by them on the erroneous ground that they were not workers within the aforesaid provision. The learned Magistrat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was a joint application on behalf of all the respondents which was dealt with and decided by a common order by the learned Magistrate, the appeal against the other respondents must also be held to be incompetent. The impugned order having become final as the deceased T. A. Kolalkar, the present appeal against other respondents should, according to the argument, be held to be incompetent because the reversal of the impugned order as against them would give rise to conflicting decisions on the point. Recently this Court disallowed.a similar objection in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Shri Rani Adhar Singhand others(1) and when the attention of the respondent's learned counsel was drawn to that decision, the objection was not seriously pressed. We ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gravure or other similar process or book binding; (v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels;" Now the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge on the nature of work of the respondents, which, in our opinion being one of fact, must be held to be binding on the High Court on revision and also not open to reassessment on the merits in this Court on special leave appeal from the order of the High Court on revision, is that, the time keepers prepare the pay sheets of the workshop staff, maintain leave account, dispose of settlement cases and maintain records for statistical purposes. Fourteen of the respondents, according to this conclusion, are timekeepers who maintain a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in this Law Lexicon to mean labour directly done for and connected with or actually incorporated in the building or improvement: service indirectly or remotely associated with the construction work is not covered by this expression. Reference has next been made by the counsel to the Law Dictionary by Ballentine where also the expression "incidental power" is stated in the same terms. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary the meaning of the words "incident" and "incidental" as used in various English statutes have been noticed. We do not think they can be of much assistance to us. The decision in Haydon v. Taylor 122 E.R. 554 noticed in this book at first sight appeared to us to be of some) relevance, but on goin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i) if employed in connection with the work of the factory. The ratio of this decision which is concerned with the construction of different statutory language intended to serve a different object and purpose is of no direct assistance in construing the definition of the word "worker" as used in the Factories Act. The respondents' counsel has then submitted that the previous history of the Act throws helpful light on the legislative intendment and in this connection he has referred to the definition of the word "worker" in the Factories Act XXV of 1934. The word "Worker in s. 2 (h) of that Act was defined to mean : "a person employed, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning ....