1964 (10) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d toddy for sale by a licensed abkari contractor. "Manufacture" is such a wide term that it would, I think, take in any changes, adaptations or modifications, etc. that may be introduced, or effected in an article. In that wide concept of manufacture, it is clear that there is certainly adaptation taking place when sweet toddy is converted into fermented toddy for sale. These two are different in qualities. The fact that this process of change is effected without the help of machinery or even without the help of human agency, I think, is immaterial, for in Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961 II L.L.J. 77), it has been held that letting sea-water into pre-prepared pans and allowing the same to evaporate under sun light and thus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the agreement were to be made on or before the 20th March 1961. If that be so, these amounts can be said to have become due only on the 20th of March, 1961 and the application having been made within one month from that date, is within time, and the proviso to Section 15(2) provides that "every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be. 4. Then the short question is whether there was an agreement Ext. P. 1 which is binding on the petitioner. The fact that there is an agreement, is not disputed. The contention is that the agreement was signed by and on behalf of the associati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fact and I am not prepared to say that the view taken by the Payment of Wages Authority was not one of the possible' views on the evidence that was available. This being so, I do not think, I am entitled to sit on judgment on that finding. 6. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner then urged the point which he had not taken either before the Payment of Wages Authority or before the Appellate Authority as it was placed before me. The contention is that the Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question as to the existence of the contract which is the basis of the claim. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in Aboobaker Dawood v. Potdar (1963-1 L. L. J. 3....