Limitation Act Not Applicable To Payment Of Wages Act Proceedings: J&K High Court
The High Court ruled that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, observing that the latter is a self-contained special legislation prescribing its own procedure, forum, and limitation period.
The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a workman challenging the order of the Principal District Judge, which had set aside an award passed in his favour by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and had also condoned the employer’s delay in filing the appeal.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while adjudicating the matter, observed that “the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, the same being a self-contained and special code which provides its own procedure, forum, and limitation.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate S.A. Hashmi.
Background
The petitioner, a workman, had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, seeking recovery of delayed wages. On November 26, 2019, the Authority awarded him ₹5,03,567 as compensation against the employer.
The employer subsequently filed an appeal before the District Judge, under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, on December 30, 2019, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
The petitioner opposed the application, contending that the Payment of Wages Act prescribes a strict 30-day limitation period for filing appeals and contains no provision for extension or application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He argued that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism, and hence, the appeal was time-barred.
Despite these objections, the appellate court condoned the delay and allowed the employer’s appeal, setting aside the award. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the order.
Court’s Observation
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act provides its own limitation period of 30 days and that the Limitation Act is inapplicable to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, being a special statute with its own code.
Elaborating on the ratio, the Bench remarked that “when a special statute prescribes a specific period of limitation and does not provide for extension, the general provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be imported merely on equitable considerations,” the Court held
The Bench further noted that the respondent had not produced the mandatory certificate of deposit from the Authority as required by Section 17(1A) of the Payment of Wages Act. The appellate court, however, treated a mere receipt of a cheque as compliance with the statutory requirement. The High Court held this to be a fatal defect, observing that “strict compliance with the deposit requirement is necessary and non-compliance renders the appeal incompetent.”
The Bench also found that the appellate court had decided both the application for condonation of delay and the main appeal on merits in one order, without providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard. Such an approach, the Court said, “violates the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem.”
It was further noted that the appellate court had recorded findings regarding alleged tampering of records without ever calling for the original case file, terming the observations conjectural and beyond jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Holding the appellate court’s order legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed it in its entirety.
“The Appellate Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, entertained an appeal without mandatory deposit, and decided the case without hearing the petitioner. Each of these infirmities independently vitiates the order,” the Bench concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, restored the original award in favour of the petitioner, and held that the appeal before the District Judge was not maintainable.
Cause Title: Barket Ali v. Divisional Manager, SFC Division, Bhaderwah
Appearances
Petitioner: S.A. Hashmi, Advocate