The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as the latter is a special and self-contained statute that lays down its own mechanism for limitation and appeals. The judgment reinforces the principle that when a special law provides specific procedures and time limits, the general provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend or modify them.
The case arose when the petitioner, Barket Ali, received an award of approximately ₹5,03,567 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner for delayed wage payments. The respondent, a State agency, challenged this award by filing an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Despite the delay, the appellate court entertained the appeal, condoned the delay, and eventually set aside the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the appellate order.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who presided over the matter, observed that Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act explicitly prescribes a thirty-day limitation period for filing an appeal against an order passed under Section 15 of the same Act. This section also contains conditions that must be fulfilled before an appeal can be entertained, including the deposit of the amount due as per the order. The Court noted that the Payment of Wages Act includes a non-obstante clause and is a self-contained code that provides for both remedies and the time within which they must be pursued. Therefore, it was held that the Limitation Act could not be applied to extend the statutory period specified under this special legislation.
The Court further held that the appellate court had committed a legal error by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It emphasized that the Payment of Wages Act is a welfare legislation aimed at ensuring that employees receive their wages without undue delay and that its procedural safeguards must be strictly followed. Allowing the provisions of the Limitation Act to override the specific provisions of the Payment of Wages Act would defeat the object of the legislation and undermine the rights of employees.
The High Court also pointed out that compliance with Section 17(1A) of the Payment of Wages Act—requiring the deposit of the disputed amount before an appeal is entertained—is mandatory. Failure to furnish this certificate of deposit renders the appeal non-maintainable. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order of the Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah, and restored the award in favour of the petitioner.
In conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that the Payment of Wages Act, being a special welfare statute, is complete in itself regarding limitation and appeals. It held that the provisions of the general Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays in appeals under this Act, and that any deviation from its prescribed procedure would be contrary to the legislative intent of protecting workers’ rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.