Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

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. 115, C. P. C.---Held, would lie 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 judgments of the authority "before the District Court". As the said Act does not define 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 revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Where it was argued that not only did revisions not lie from the authority to this Court but that the scope of an enquiry before the authority was very limited, 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 said Act are limited or are not as wide as those of a civil Court would limit the scope of a revision, but the Courts do not see 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…