Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115, 15, 17

Law: Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)

Section: 15

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 57

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) -S. 115 read with Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 15 & 17-Revision under S. 113; C. P. C.-Held, would be against judgment of District Court under S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. According to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, an appeal can be filed against the judgment of the authority the term "District Court" the term meant the District Court as defined in the General Clauses Act. As the District Court under the General Clauses Act is clearly a Court subordinate to the High Court, it follows that a revision would lie under section, 115 against judgments of the District Court under section 17 of the said Act. It was argued that as revisions could not be filed against the judgments of the authority under the said Act, it should be presumed that revisions could not be filed against the judgments of the District Court, otherwise the results would be anomal ous: Held, whether the results be anomalous or not, the Courts have to give effect to the plain language of the statute. Although the Legislature was aware that the District Court: is a Court subordinate to the High Court and that revisions against the judgments of the District Court lie in the High Court, it has enacted that appeals against the judgments of the authority under the said Act should be filed in "the District Court." By not defining the District Court, the Legislature has clearly manifested its intention to preserve the provisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Where it was argued that not only did revisions not lie from the authority to the High Court but also that the scope of an enquiry before the authority was very limited, and therefore the provisions of section 115, C. P. C. were excluded by implica tion: Held, the fact that the powers of the authority under the Pay ment of Wages Act are limited or are not as wide as those of a civil Court would limit the scope of a revision, but it is not apparent how it would exclude a revision nor can the High Court's jurisdiction be so lightly excluded. On the contrary, the pre sumption always is in favour of the jurisdiction of the superior Courts and as there is…