Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision Application 24 of 1966.
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 companyflicting decisions on the point.
The City Magistrate was the authority appointed under s. 15 and the district companyrt was the companyrt of appeal under s. 17 of the said Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court affirming on revision under s. 115 Civil P.C. the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhansi, who had allowed the respondents 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.
As his legal representatives had number been brought on the record, the appeal against him is incompetent and since there was a joint application on behalf of all the respondents which was dealt with and decided by a companymon order by the learned Magistrate, the appeal against the other respondents must also be held to be incompetent.
The learned Magistrate held that the respondents had been entrusted with purely clerical duties and they were number companynected in any manner with the manufacturing process.
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 companyplained that they were denied wages for overtime work done by them on the erroneous ground that they were number workers within the aforesaid provision.
C. Agarwal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. Chakravarty.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal.
A. Sevid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
1 to 28 and 30 to 57.
On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with this view and came to the companyclusion that the work done by the respondents was incidental to or companynected with the manufacturing process.
On this companyclusion their application was dismissed.
It was observed in the order that some of the respondents were entrusted with the duty of checking the time work of each worker in the workshop, a few others were timekeepers and the remaining respondents prepared account sheets on the basis of the time sheets and did other work incidental to the running of the work shop including payment of wages to the staff of the workshop and the office.
for respondents Nos.
1644 of 1966.
The High Court on revision as already observed, affirmed the order of the learned Additional District Judge.
