Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway Jagadhri Workshop, Jagadhri vs Joginder Singh

M.R. Sharma, J.—The Respondent made a claim for Rs. 1637.83 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) against the Petitioner pertaining to his remuneration for the suspension period from 21st Sentember, 1968 to 3rd December (sic) and the loss resulting from stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for a period of three years with effect from 26th August, 1970. The authority held that the claim for wages for the suspension period was barred by time and the loss of increment benefit having been backed by a valid order of stoppage could not be entertained by the authority under the Act The Respondent went up in appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Ambala The revision petition filed by the Petitioner was admitted for hearing by a Division Bench because the view taken by me in Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway Delhi etc. v. Ram Kishan etc. 19(sic)3 Cur. L.J. 693, was doubted.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to Sections 7 and 15 of the Act, and argued that the authority under the Act exercised summary jurisdiction for ordering the payment of wages to an employee and in this jurisdiction it cannot question the legality of the orders passed by the employer who is a statutory authority. The metrical portion of Section 7 of the Act reads as under:

Deductions which may be made from wages(I) Not with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act, 189(sic), the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind those authorised by under this Act.

Explanation I: Every payment made by the employed person to the emplyor or his agent shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a deduction from wages

Explanation II: Any loss of wages resulting from the imposition, for good and sufficient cause, upon a person employed of any of the following penalties, namely,-

(i) the withholding of increment or promotion include the stoppage of increment at an efficiency bar ;

(ii) the deduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale ; or

(iii) suspension ;

shall not be deemed to be a deduction from wages in any case where the rules framed by the employer for the imposition of any such penalty are in conformity with the requirements, if any, which may be specified in this behalf by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

(2) Deductions; from the wages of in employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds only, namely:

(h) deductions required to be made by order of a Court or other authority competent to make such order.

The Language employed in explanation II noticed above that the wages deducted as penalty resulting from the imposition for good and sufficient cause pursuant to a domestic enquiry could be validity deducted. In other words if the employer puts forth a defence that deductions have been made pursuant to a disciplinary action against the employee it has to prima facie show that the enquiry had been held in accordance with the rules on the subject. If it falls to do to, or if the order imposing the penalty on the employee prima facie discloses that it bad been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is open to the authority to come to the conclusion that the penalty had rot been imposed on the employee for good and sufficient cause, the authority would, ignore such an order and order the payment of wages to the employee. The provisions of Section 7(2)(h) of the Act also imply that the order of a Court of other authority should have been parsed after notice to the employee if the employer intended to claim any immunity against its challenge. In the instant case, the appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the impugned orders were passed against the employee without the service of any notice upon him to show cause why such an order should not be passed. The impugned orders were, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules governing the enquiries. In the circumstances no fault can be found with the view taken by the Appellate Court. This view is in accord with the principle of law laid down by a Division trench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 3(sic)9 of 1969 (The Divisional Personnel Officer Delhi Division. Northern Railway, New Delhi and Anr. v. Jaswant Rai C.R. No. 389 of 1969, decided on April 27, 1972. After making an exhaustive analysis of the case law, the Division Bench observed as under:-

This clearly indicates that where a part of the claim relates to increment with held, the Authority dealing with the claim has to see whether the deductions from wages in such casts on that account are in conformity with the rules framed by the employer for imposition of any such penalty." This view was followed by me in Ram Kishan''s case (supra) Mr. Shant, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the aforementioned view can counter to the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Divisional Superintendent. Divisional Superintendent Northern Railway, Delhi Division Vs. Mukand Lal, . We are unable to accept this contention. In the Full Bench case, the legality of the order of suspension was not under challenge. In the instant case, as already observed, the impugned orders were prima facie violative of principle of natural justice and the rules No elaborate enquiry was needed to determine their legality. In such a situation, the authorities under the Act could ignore these orders while considering the claim made by the employee.

For reasons aforementioned, we see no force in this petition and dismiss the same. We might also add that the claim made by the worker has been resisted by the Petitioner wholly on untenable grounds for a long period. In the circumstances, we order that the amount found to be due to the employer be paid to him alongwith interest at 6 per cent, per annum. No costs

Bhopinder Singh Dhllon, J.

I agree.