CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 07, 2008 The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawashahr District Jalandhar and another. .....Petitioners VERSUS Baldev Mittal, Conductor. ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Bhanot, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The State has filed this revision against the judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, challenging the order mainly on the ground that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with and decide the issue under the Payment of Wages Act. Respondent, Baldev Mittal, who was working as a Conductor, was awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment by the competent authority, which was challenged by him under the Payment of Wages Act (for short, “the Act”). CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 2 }: The facts, in brief, are that the wages of the respondent were ordered to be deducted through various orders of different dates starting from 1974 to 1983. The respondent challenged these orders on the grounds that these are non-speaking order and were never communicated to him. He further pleaded that no notice or charge sheet was ever served on him and that no enquiry was conducted. He accordingly filed an application under Section 15 of the Act for issuance of a direction to the respondent to refund his wages. The authority exercising powers under the Act, through its judgment dated 19.2.1986, came to hold that withholding of some of the increments was not legal and was unauthorised. Accordingly, it partly allowed the petition as some of the deductions were held authorised as well. This was impugned by respondent, Baldev Mittal, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The plea of jurisdiction of the authority to deal with the issue under the Act was also raised. It was pleaded that the orders impugned were against the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, however, dismissed the appeal by holding that the authority was justified in observing that the orders were non-speaking and would not stand the test of law laid down in Ram Dass Chaudhary, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1968 SLR 792. He, however, partly accepted the appeal by holding that deduction made through order dated 14.4.1977, 16.10.1980 and 8.7.1973 were also unauthorised and as such, the appellant- respondent was held entitled to wages qua these orders, preceding 12 months of the presentation of the original application. This order is CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 3 }: impugned in the present revision petition. Mr.S.K.Bhanot, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submits with some justification that the aspect of jurisdiction of the authority as well as the Additional District Judge to interfere in the order passed by way of Punishment has not been properly dealt with. He accordingly pleads that the authority as well as the Additional Distinct Judge would not have any jurisdiction to deal with the issue under the Act. Mr.Behl, appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, would contest this proposition. He refers to a decision of this Court in the case of The Divisional Personal Officer, Delhi Division, Northern Rly. N. Delhi and another Vs. Jaswant Rai and another, 1974 Labour Industrial Cases 307 to say that authority under the Act would have jurisdiction to deal with the claims arising out of deduction in the payment of wages and can go into the question whether the order of deduction is in violation of any mandatory rules. Mr.Bhanot, on the other hand, would refer to the case of The General Manager, Punjab Roadways Vs. Ajit Singh Conductor No.285, 2000 (1) RSJ 276 to urge that the authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the order of punishment imposed by the employer. In case of Ajit Singh (supra) reliance has been placed on Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway and another Vs. Chhotey Lal Saxena and others, 1971 Labour Industrial Cases 592 and on the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, Conductor, 1998 (9) SCC 325. It has been held in these cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the authority constituted under the Act have no jurisdiction to interfere CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 4 }: with the order passed by the employer in disciplinary proceedings. The view taken by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Vs. Nanak Singh Driver , 1987(4) SLR 750 was not approved in the case of Ajit Singh (supra). The relevant observations in this regard are as under:- “6. Let me now examine the judgment of this Court in Nanak Singh's case (supra) on which strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent and also by the Authorities below. Annual increments of Nanak Singh driver were withheld by the General Manager by his order dated 6.8.1982. Instead of challenging that order in as appropriate forum Nanak Singh filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act seeking recovery of wages which, according to him, were unauthorisedly deducted by the General Manager on the basis of his order dated 6.8.1982. The Prescribed Authority held that the order dated 6.8.1982 was not a speaking order and did not satisfy the requirements of law and, therefore, deduction of wages in pursuance thereof was unauthorised. Appeal against that order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the prescribed Authority did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of the order withholding annual increments by way of punishment. The argument was negatived while relying on Explanation II to Section 7(1) of the Act. The learned Judge was of the view that since no reasons were CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 5 }: recorded as to why the explanation furnished by the delinquent employee was not satisfactory which led to the passing of the order of punishment withholding annual increments, the same was illegal and, therefore, the penalty imposed could not be said to be `for good and sufficient cause.' The learned Judge did not examine the object with which Explanation II was inserted and, with respect, I disagree with the view expressed by him. Since I am not in agreement with the view of the learned Judge in Nanak Singh's case (Supra). I was inclined to refer this case to a larger Bench for the reconsideration of that view but that is not necessary because of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh's case (supra) which is binding on this Court. It is true that the learned Judges of the Supreme Court did not examine the provisions of Explanation II to Section 7(1) of the Act but that does not take away the effect of the judgment because it has been clearly held therein that the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the employer in disciplinary proceedings. Since the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Nanak Singh's case (supra) is contrary to what has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in holding that Nanak Singh's case (supra) does not lay down the correct law.” It is noticed that the view taken in Nanak Singh's case is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 6 }: case of Baldev Singh and Chottey Lal Saxena (supra). Mr.Bhanot has also placed before me a short order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal No.1094-97 of 1988 ( General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Vs. Balbir Singh, Conductor) where the same view has been reiterated by relying upon the case of Baldev Singh (supra). The order dated 1.10.1997 reads as under:- “In Civil Appeal No.5950 of 1994 (State of Punjab and others Vs. Baldev Singh) by an order dated 12th August, 1997 (Venkataswami and Kharo JJ.). This Court had held that the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Orders passed in Disciplinary Proceedings against the employees concerned and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act cannot set aside such orders. In view thereof the appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set-aside. There will be no order as to costs.” Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ropar Vs. Swaran Singh, 2001 (3) RSJ 41 has held that the authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed under the disciplinary proceedings by a competent authority. It is, thus, not possible to say that the authorities under the Act would have jurisdiction to go into the order passed against an employee by an employer by way of punishment. The view taken in Nanak Chand's case (supra) or for CIVIL REVISION NO.789 OF 1987 :{ 7 }: that matter in Jaswant Rai's case (supra) can not prevail as the matter stands adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order, as such, is not sustainable. The necessary consequences on the basis of law should have normally followed. However, it is noticed that deductions made through orders dated 14.4.1977, 16.10.1980 and 8.7.1973 were held unauthorised. The revision petition is pending since the year 1986. By now the respondent must have retired. Making him to undergo the effect of the order, may not operate fairly at this stage. In response to a query, the State counsel submits that there will be hardly any difference since in majority of the cases the order withholding of the increments was up-held. I, as such, would not interfere in the order under revision. The legal position is what is held above. The petition is accordingly disposed of. February 07,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE