HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.1811, 1824, 1839, 1841, 1868, 2044 & 2714 of 2002 Dt.21.10.2010 W.P.No.1811 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And S.Rajeswar and another ..Respondents W.P.No.1824 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And B.Janardhan and another ..Respondents W.P.No.1839 of 2002 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And C.V.Swamy and another ..Respondents W.P.No.1841 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And P.Narasaiah and another ..Respondents W.P.No.1868 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And P.R.Gopal and another ..Respondents W.P.No.2044 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And K.Sudarshan and another ..Respondents W.P.No.2714 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nirmal, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And A.Laxmaiah and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.1811, 1824, 1839, 1841, 1868, 2044 & 2714 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions arise out of similar orders as indicated below: W.P.No.1811 of 2002 Against P . W . C . N o . 1 1 of 1998, dt.28.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 W.P.No.1824 of 2002 Against P.W.C.No.9 of 1998, dt.28.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 W.P.No.1839 of 2002 Against P.W.C.No.6 of 1998, dt.31.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 W.P.No.1841 of 2002 Against P.W.C.No.8 of 1998, dt.28.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 W.P.No.1868 of 2002 Against P.W.C.No.4 of 1998, dt.31.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 W.P.No.2044 of 2002 Against P . W . C . N o . 1 2 of 1998, dt.28.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 W.P.No.2714 of 2002 Against P . W . C . N o . 1 0 of 1998, dt.31.12.1999 Consequential order Dt.18.12.2000 The applicant before the authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ‘the Act’) is the 1st respondent in each case is either Driver or Conductor of APSRTC. The charges in W.P.Nos.1811, 1824, 1868, 2044 and 2714 of 2002 relate to cash and ticket irregularities committed by the Conductors i.e., first respondent and after conducting enquiry the APSRTC imposed punishment of deferment of annual grade increments for a period of one year or two years, as the case may be, with cumulative effect. The charge in W.P.No.1839 of 2002 relates to absenteeism of the 1st respondent Driver from 16.2.1997 to 25.2.1997 and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the APSRTC imposed the penalty of reducing his pay by two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The charge in W.P.No.1841 of 2002 relates to accident resulting in death of one Kura Gangaram and after conducting enquiry the APSRTC imposed the punishment of deferment of annual grade increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The order of punishment has become final. In W.P.No.1811 of 2002, after a lapse of four years the 1st respondent filed P.W.C.No.11 of 1998 before the authority under the Act and the authority held that the punishment imposed was held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and directed the APSRTC to work out the dues payable to the applicant/1st respondent and pay the difference of wages to him. As the said wages are said to have been not paid, the consequential order dated 18.12.2000 specifying the particular amount was also passed. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions have been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the applicants before the authority while conducting buses found committed ticket irregularities and after conducting departmental enquiry the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was imposed resulting in loss of certain wages every month. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners further submits that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent are contrary to law and without any jurisdiction. It is stated that the APSRTC is established under Section 3 of the RTC Act (Central Act) 1950 and the APSRTC is authorized to frame rules regulating the service conditions of its employees with the prior approval of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. APSRTC Employees C.C & A Regulations are made under Section 45 of the RTC Act, 1950 and approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and pursuant to the said regulations alone after conducting regular departmental enquiry the punishment was imposed on the 1st respondent in the writ petitions. The payment of less wages is pursuant to the punishment orders suffered by the 1st respondent in the departmental enquiry. The said punishment order had become final and they have not questioned the same. But, after the lapse of so many years, they have filed applications under the Act for condoning the delay in approaching the authority under Act. Under first proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act, the application shall be presented within twelve months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be. But, however, as per second proviso, the application filed even after twelve months can be admitted if the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, if any deductions are made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such party may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3). It is stated that imposition of punishment cannot be said as deduction of wages. Section 7 of the Act deals with deductions, which may be made from wages. Under Section 7 of the Act, the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorized by or under the Act. Under explanation-I to Section 7(1) of the Act, every payment made by the employed person to the employer or his agent shall, for the purpose of the Act, be deemed to be a deduction from wages. Under explanation-II to Section 7(1) of the Act, any loss of wages resulting from the imposition, for good and sufficient cause, upon a person employed of any of the following penalties, namely, the withholding of increments or promotion (including the stoppage of increment at an efficiency bar), the reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; or 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. Deductions can also be made under Section 7(2) in certain eventualities. The question that arises for consideration is whether the deduction from the wages on account of punishment orders imposed by the APSRTC is illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act. If any deductions are made for no good and sufficient cause, the said deductions are contrary to the provisions of the Act and it is open for the employee to approach the authority under the Act. In the instant cases, it is specifically stated that enquiries have been conducted under the regulations made by the APSRTC, which are approved by the State Government and published in the Official Gazette and these regulations are in force and not being challenged. In the impugned order, the authority under the Act has stated that there are no rules or regulations authorizing the APSRTC to stop the payment of increments to the Conductors or Drivers, as the case may be, if they are involved in any cash and ticket irregularities. I am of the opinion that the authority under the Act has totally ignored the existence of APSRTC Employees CC & A Regulations, which are made under Section 45 of the RTC Act 1950 and approved by the State Government, under which enquiries were conducted and imposed punishment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said punishment orders are without any authority or contrary to Rules or Regulations. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the authority under the Act has completely ignored the existence of APSRTC Employees CC & A Regulations. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the 2nd respondent for consideration afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of all the cases as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the writ petitioners may not recover the amount paid pursuant to the interim orders of this Court and the amount already paid will be subject to the fresh orders that may be passed by the authority under the Act. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 21.10.2010 kpr