Payment Of Wages Act Operates Independently Of Limitation Act, Mandatory Preconditions For Appeals Must Be Fulfilled: J&K&L High Court

Reinforcing the autonomy of special legislations, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, has ruled that the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, as the latter is a self-contained legislation that not only lays down the manner and mode of appeal but also the conditions precedent for its maintainability.

“Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which provides the statutory mechanism for filing of appeals, prescribes a specific period of limitation of thirty days for preferring an appeal from the order or direction passed under Section 15 of the said Act.. when a special statute prescribes a specific period of limitation for filing an appeal or application and does not provide for extension thereof, the general provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked”, remarked Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while quashing a judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah, which had entertained and allowed an appeal beyond the statutory limitation period by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Background:

The petitioner, Barket Ali, had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order of the Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah, which had set aside an award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) on 26.11.2019.

The award of ₹5,03,567 was made in favour of the petitioner against the respondent Divisional Manager, State Forest Corporation, Bhaderwah on account of delayed payment of wages. The respondent preferred an appeal accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner opposed the maintainability of this appeal, contending that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, being a special and self-contained legislation, excludes the application of the Limitation Act, and that the appeal filed after 30 days was, therefore, time-barred. Despite these objections, the Appellate Court not only condoned the delay but also proceeded to decide the appeal on merits without calling the original record or providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing prompting the present writ petition.

Court's Observations:

Adjudicating the matter Justice Nargal at its outset 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 Court reiterated that when a special enactment prescribes its own limitation period and procedural mechanism without expressly incorporating the provisions of the Limitation Act, the general law of limitation cannot be imported by implication.

“The Payment of Wages Act, being a beneficial and self-contained legislation, prescribes not only the manner and mode of appeal but also the conditions precedent for its maintainability, including the mandatory requirement under Section 17(1A) of furnishing a certificate of deposit of the amount payable under the direction appealed against,” the Court observed.

On the issue of the mandatory certificate of deposit, Justice Nargal noted that the respondent had failed to produce the certificate from the competent authority as required by Section 17(1A). Instead, the Appellate Court relied on a mere receipt of cheque, which, the High Court held, “by no stretch of interpretation can be equated with the statutory requirement of a certificate of deposit.”

The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 17(1A) is not a mere procedural formality but a condition precedent for the maintainability of the appeal.

Equally critical was the Court's finding that the Appellate Court violated the principles of natural justice by deciding both the condonation application and the main appeal in a single composite order without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Appellate Court had also recorded findings of alleged tampering in the record without ever summoning the original file, an act which the High Court found to be “based on conjecture and devoid of evidentiary foundation.”

“The learned Appellate Court acted in undue haste and misdirected itself both on law and facts. It wrongly invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act, entertained the appeal without the mandatory certificate, decided the matter without hearing the petitioner, and recorded findings without calling the original record,” Justice Nargal observed.

Holding the impugned judgment to be legally unsustainable, the High Court thus quashed and set aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah.

The Court declared that the appeal filed by the respondent before the District Judge was not maintainable being barred by limitation and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 17(1A) of the Payment of Wages Act.

“Any one of these defects would suffice to quash the order; together they make it impossible to allow the impugned order to stand,” the bench concluded and the original award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda, stood restored in favour of the petitioner.

Case Title: Barket Ali Vs Divisional Manager SFC Division Bhaderwah

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment