UNION OF INDIAversusSH. PUNNILAL AND ORS.

                                 UNION OF INDIA                                  A
                                       v.
                             SH. PUNNILAL AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 11, 1996.

                 K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)                           B

            Payment of Wages Act, 1936 :


-          S.15--Employee's suit for promotion decreed-Promoted-Filed an ap-
    plication for backwages and prescribed authority directing payment-Appeal C
    against the order dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the Central
    Administrative Tribunal-On appeal held : The employee had not sought any
    relief in the suit for payment of back wages-Hence he is deban·ed from
    claiming the relief of backwages--Therefore the prescribed authority under the
    Payment of Wages Act has no inherent jurisdiction to grant payment of
    backwages.                                                                     D
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13269 of
    1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.95 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A.No.617 of 1990.                       E
            N.N. Goswami, Ms. Indu Goswami and A.K. Sharma for the Appel-
    !ant.

          Dhruv Mehta, Arivind Varma, Fazlin Anam and Ms. Monica Mehta
    for the Respondents.                                                          F
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Delay condoned.

            Leave granted.                                                       G
            We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

        This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central
    Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad made on March 2, 1995 in O.A. No.
    m~~                                                                          H
                                           629
    630                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A       The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a
  Shunter in 1980 he had filed a civil suit bearing No. 329/83 in the court of
  Additional District Munsif, Allahabad for declaration that the defendants,
  their agents and servants be directed to consider his promotion to the
  catergory of Driver 'C' in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560 from December 10,
  1980 when his immediate juniors were promoted to that category of
B employees. The decree came to be passed by the trial Court on March 24,
  1984. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Allahabad confirmed it on
  July 18, 1985. In compliance thereof, the respondent was promoted as
  Driver 'C' on June 10, 1986. Thereafter, the respondent filed the applica-
  tion under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on July 8, 1986. The
C prescribed Authority directed by order dated December 7, 1988 payment
  of back-wages in a sum of Rs. 30,220. The Union of India filed an appeal
                                                                                   -
  before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. Thereafter, the
  0.A. was filed in Central Administrative Tribunal which has been dis-
  missed by the impugned order. When the matter had come up for hearing,
  notice Was directed subject to the appellant's depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000
D
  towards the legal expenses incurred by the respondent. Pursuant thereto,
  the amount came to be deposited.

          It is contended by Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respon-
    dent, that since the prescribed Authority and the appellate Authority under
E   the Payment of Wages Act are not the authorities subordinate to the
    Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. is not maintainable. We find force in the
    contention. But, nonetheless, the material question that arises for con-
    sideration is: whether the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has
    the jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act to compute back wages on
    promotion of the respondent as Driver 'C'. Admittedly, when the respon-
F   dent had the relief in the suit by way of declaration for promotion and the
    declaration having been given and become final, therein the respondent
    had not sought any relief for payment of back-wages. Consequently, by
    operation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent
    is debarred to claim the relief of back-wages. The authority under the
G   Payment of Wages Act, therefore, has no inherent jurisdiction in the matter
    to entertain the claim for payment of back-wages and for grant of the order.   I
                                                                                   \
          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the authority under
    the Payment of Wages Act stands set aside. No costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.