Paul Jeyaraj and Another vs The General Manager, Southern Railway

Venkatadri, J.—This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the petitions filed by the employees, who are travelling ticket examiners in Southern

Railway, before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Madras, for payment of wages to them u/s 3 of the Payment of

Wages Act (IV of 1936). The petitions were dismissed by the Commissioner on the ground that there was nothing to show that under the

subsisting terms of contract of service the Petitioners were entitled to the grant of special pay and the consequential increase in dearness allowance.

The appeal preferred by the Petitioners against this order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge of Tiruchirappalli. The Civil Revision

Petition is against the order of the Additional District Judge.

It is necessary to state a few facts before I dispose of the Civil Revision Petition. The Petitioners, as already stated by me, are travelling ticket

examiners. Sometimes they were asked to do a special kind of work to check surprisingly persons who are travelling without tickets. This type of

work is popularly known as Flying Squad. Really there is no classification in the railway department as Flying Squad. Some of the travelling ticket

examiners have been asked to do this duty. Considering the nature of the work involved, these persons were given special allowance from time to

time. When the Central Pay Commission scales of pay were introduced the Railway Board decided that no special pay should be granted to the

travelling ticket examiners. Nevertheless the Board paid special pay up to 30th June 1949, or until further orders whichever was earlier. The

paying of special pay was continued up to 30th June 1949. The Board finally decided not to sanction the continuance of special pay after 30th

June 1949. The Petitioners insisted on payment of special pay whenever they were asked to do Flying Squad duty. In 1951, the Petitioners filed

P.W. Case Nos. 72 and 73 of 1951 before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation Act for payment of special wages. The

Commissioner allowed the claim of the Petitioners up to 30th June 1951. They preferred P.W. Case Nos. 10 to 12 of 1956 for payment of special

pay from 1st July 1951 to 31st March 1955. The railway authorities disputed their claim. They contended that the petition before the

Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation was not maintainable, that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction, and that in any event there was

inordinate delay in filing the petition. The railway authorities also contended that the Petitioners have executed service agreement with the railway

administration one of the conditions of which is so long as they railway servant remains in railway service, he shall be paid such wages as may be

prescribed from time to time by the rules of service applicable to his position and appointment. The Petitioners, on the other hand, contended that

the railway authorities could not raise these contentions in view of the fact that the decision in P.W. Case Nos. 72 and 73 of 1951, had become

final that the railway authorities were estopped from raising the question as to the authority or jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen''s

Compensation and that the decision had become res judicata in the present proceedings. As already stated, the Commissioner disallowed their

claim for the period from 1st July 1951 to 31st March 1955. The appeal by the Petitioners to the District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, against that order

also failed.

The question I have to consider is whether the Petitioners have a right to present a petition before the Commissioner for Workmen''s

Compensation under the Payment of Wages Act. The Petitioners who are under the contract and general conditions of service, are bound by the

orders and rules in force from time to time regarding pay, etc., admissible to them, and it is not open to them to question the propriety or otherwise

of the decisions of the Government of India in matters relating to fixation of pay, etc. nor has this Court jurisdiction to go into such matter. u/s 3 of

the Payment of Wages Act, every employer shall be responsible for the payment to persons employed by him of all wages required to be paid

under the Act. But the question arises whether wages includes any special allowance for any extra work done. That depends upon term of the

contract. Unless there is express provision for paying the stipulated sum, the definition will not cover such payment. In Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. K.R.

Gadgil, a Bench consisting of Beaumont C.J., and Wassoodew J., held that the expression wages meant wages earned and not potential wages

and the expression remuneration, which would, if the terms of the contract were fulfilled be payable, in Section 2(vi) meant no more than

remuneration payable on the fulfillment of the contract. It is true that originally the Railway Board was sanctioning special allowance from time to

time to the Petitioners who were doing special kind of work known as Flying Squad. When the Central Pay Commission fixed the scales, they

definitely took into consideration the work done by these people and did not fix special allowance for the special kind of work done by them. In

any event the Railway Board definitely stated that after the introduction of the scales fixed by the Central Pay Commission they were not bound to

pay the special allowance to them for the special kind of work they were doing. Further, the Petitioners executed service agreements with the

railway administration, one of the conditions being that so long as the railway servant remains in service, he shall be paid such pay as may be

prescribed from time to time by the rules of the service applicable to his position and appointment. The scales of pay fixed by the Central Pay

Commission were on more liberal scale and when the Petitioners elected to be governed by the scales of pay, they have been paid the wages

payable to them in accordance with the scales applicable to them. Therefore, they are not entitled to file the petition before the Commissioner for

Workmen�s Compensation, once they accepted the revised scales of pay fixed by the Central Pay Commission.

The Petitioners are bound by the orders and rules in force from time to time regarding pay, etc., admissible to them, as they are under the

contract and general conditions of service, and the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to go into such matter under the Payment of Wages Act.

Hence the order passed by the Commissioner in P.W. Cases Nos. 72 and 73 of 1951, is void and the railway authorities are not bound by the

decision. Once we come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Commissioner in P.W. Cases Nos. 72 and 73 of 1951, is invalid, it cannot

be deemed to be res judicata in the present proceedings.

u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, an employee is entitled to put forward claim arising out of deductions from the wage or delay in payment

of the wages. In the present case the Petitioners were asked to do special kind of work which is part and parcel of their duty, that is, to check

surprisingly persons who are travelling without tickets popularly known as Flying Squad. I am of opinion that Section 15 of the Act is not

applicable to the present case. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act constitutes a Court or a Tribunal of summary jurisdiction to give

facilities to the employee to recover his wages-as expeditiously as possible. Beyond that it has no jurisdiction to grant any special allowance or pay

or fix any revised scale for the employee. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge. The civil revision, petition is

dismissed. No costs.