C.R.No.4913 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4913 of 1996 Date of Decision 05.11.2009 Rattan Singh ........ Petitioner Versus General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms.Maninder, Advocate, with Sh.Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Y.K.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing No.4913 and 4216 of 1996, filed by the same petitioner on the identical facts. For brevity, the facts are being taken from C.R.No.4913 of 1996. The petitioner who was serving as a conductor with the Punjab Roadways filed an application under Section 15(5) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936,(in short the “Act”) for the recovery of Rs.15,088/-. It was averred that an application had been filed by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Act, for setting aside of the order dated 27.5.1976, whereby his three annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect, by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur. The said application was rejected by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of Authority under the Act vide order dated 28.11.1985. However, on appeal, the same was accepted vide order dated 22.5.1986. The petitioner thus claimed that C.R.No.4913 of 1996 -2- he is entitled to recover Rs.15,088/- as arrears of wages from the respondent. Upon notice, the opposite party filed reply and controverted the averments made in the application. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “1. Whether the application is not sustainable; if so its effect? OPR. 2. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 6.6.1996, while deciding issue No.1 regarding the sustainability of the application filed by the workman-petitioner came to the conclusion that the Senior Sub Judge was not the Authority under the Act and, therefore, he as well as the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed with regard to stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. It was further held that the order dated 22.5.1986 being without jurisdiction could not be executed. It is this order which has been challenged in the instant revision petition. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon Apex Court decision in Civil Appeal No.5950 of 1994 (State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh) decided on 12.8.1997, and of this Court in Civil Revision No.2332 of 1990, (State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh) decided on 14.2.2007, and in Civil Revision No.2784 of 1991 (State of Punjab Vs. Gian Chand) decided on 30.4.2003, to contend that the Authority constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 15(5) of the Act so as to interfere in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against an employee. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid legal position, the order dated 22.5.1986, passed by the Appellate Court under the Act was a nullity and thus inexecutable. C.R.No.4913 of 1996 -3- On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to go through the aforesaid judgments and today she has candidly submitted that the issue raised herein stands concluded in favour of the employer by the aforesaid decisions. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. November 5, 2009 (AJAY KUMR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE