Skip to content


The Divisional Personnel Officer, N. Rly. Bikaner Vs. Ram Kishore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Nos. 514 to 517 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Raj235
ActsPayment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 15(3)
AppellantThe Divisional Personnel Officer, N. Rly. Bikaner
RespondentRam Kishore
Appellant Advocate L.R. Bhansali, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Ganpat Singh, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- .....officer, northern railway, bikaner, on the ground that the order passed by the payment of wages authority in these 4 cases against which appeals were preferred was not a final direction against which an appeal lay.2. section 15(3) of the payment of wages act lays down that the payment of wages authority may 'direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted or the payment of delayed wages together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit.' section 17 provides for an appeal against the direction made under sub-section (3).3. the payment of wages authority framed the following issues in all the 4 cases which were heard together as they were claims filed by the same employee for different periods:--(1) has the promotion of the applicant.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. These are connected revision applications against the orders of the District Judge, Bikaner, passed as an appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act dismissing 4 appeals filed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner, on the ground that the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority in these 4 cases against which appeals were preferred was not a final direction against which an appeal lay.

2. Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act lays down that the Payment of Wages Authority may 'direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted or the payment of delayed wages together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit.' Section 17 provides for an appeal against the direction made under Sub-section (3).

3. The Payment of Wages Authority framed the following issues in all the 4 cases which were heard together as they were claims filed by the same employee for different periods:--

(1) Has the promotion of the applicant been wrongfully withheld without any sufficient cause?

(2) Is the application barred by limitation and the delay is not condonable by the Court?

(3) Ts the applicant entitled to get compensation?

After discussing the evidence produced by the parties the Authority passed the following order:--

'I therefore decide these issues in favour of petitioner and against the opposite party and further order that the applicant will receive compensation from the opposite party to tbe tune of two times of claimed money, which may be found out in light of decision of issue No. 1.

No other point was argued before me.

The net result is that all these four petitions succeed. The applicant will draw in the grade of Rs. 205-280 from 13-8-1960 and in so doing he shall receive from the opposite party all amounts falling and drawn short of this and should go on drawing in this scale in accordance with law and rules of his service. He shall get the compensation on such amounts which may be found due. The opposite party shall make calculations in the light of this judgment, within two months and show the same to the applicant and make the payment to him imme-diately thereafter. If there arises any dispute about such calculations the same may be referred to this Court which will decide the same in the light of this judgment as a matter of execution of this order. The compensation shall be payable till the amount of the claim or part thereof is paid.

The applicant will also get Rs. 50/- consolidated as cost of this case from the opposite party. A copy of this judgment be placed on the file of the petitions referred to above. Thus this judgment disposes them of accordingly.

Pronounced in open Court this 30th June, 1967.'

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the above decision contains a direction as contemplated by Section 15(3). It contained a final adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It is true that the actual amount of deductions or compensation were not worked out by the Authority, but the order provided that the opposite party shall make calculations in the light of the judgment within two months and show the same to the applicant and make the payment to him immediately thereafter and in case there arose any dispute about such calculations the same was to be referred to the Authority for decision in the light of the judgment as a matter of execution of the order. That shows that the Authority treated the order pronounced on 30th June, 1967 as the final direction within the meaning of Section 15(3). The ques-tion of calculating the deduction and the compensation and the payment of the same to the applicant could only have arisen if the D. P. O. had decided to accept the decision of the Payment of Wages Authority. That is why the Authority provided that any dispute about the calculation would be decided as a matter of execution of 'the order. That made it clear that this dispute was only to be decided after the disposal of any appeal which might be preferred against the order by the D. P. O.

5. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the direction is not in accordance with form F of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules. The direction does not become illegal if it is strictly not in accordance with form F. It complies with Section 15(3).

6. Another objection on behalf of the respondent is that if the amount is not calculated then it is difficult to find out whether or not an appeal lies under Section 17. So far as the employee is concerned if any part of his claim is dismissed he knows the amount of his claim and he can find out whether or not an appeal lies against the order. So far as the opposite party is concerned no appeal lies unless the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. The amount of the deposit would go to show whether or not an appeal lies under Section 17.

7. I accordingly allow the revision applications with costs, set aside the orders of the learned District Judge and direct him to hear and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law.

8. The amount deposited by the D. P. O. will not be paid to the employee till the disposal of the appeals.

9. The learned District Judge shall dispose of the appeals at a very early date.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //