Case: State of Punjab Vs. Jaswinder Singh

Ashok Bhushan and Deepak Gupta, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. No one has appeared for the Respondent, though service is complete on the Respondent as per the Office Report dated 15.5.2017. This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 18.4.2007, by which the Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1989 preferred by the State of Punjab through General Manager, Punjab Roadways was dismissed. The facts of the case leading to this Appeal are, that the Respondent was working as a Conductor with the Appellant. On 10.1.1998, he filed an Application Under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for a direction to the Appellant herein for refund of delayed/deducted Wages from the Salary of the Respondent. The aforesaid Application was contested by the Appellant. It was contended, that the deductions have been made from salary of the Respondent in accordance with law. 2. The Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, accepted the Application filed by the Respondent, vide Order dated 27.11.1987 and took the view that Orders dated 24.2.1984, 1.6.1984 and 4.6.1985 passed by the Appellant were illegal and were void ab initio. The Appeal preferred by the Appellant herein against the aforesaid Order was dismissed by the appellate Authority, vide Judgment dated 11.5.1988. The State took up the matter before the High Court by means of Civil Revision. The High Court was of the view, that though the remedy available to the Respondent was to file a Statutory Appeal or to file a Civil Suit, however, since due procedure was not followed, the Orders passed for withholding increments violating of Principles of Natural Justice, have rightly been ignored. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-State contends, that the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, could not have ignored the Orders passed in the Disciplinary proceedings, which became final without any challenge under the Statutory Rules or before any competent Court. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999 (81) FLR 303 (SC) in which this Court has observed in Para 2 as under: 2. Though Notice was served, the Respondent has chosen to remain absent. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Authority constituted, under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to interface with the Orders passed under the disciplinary proceedings. We find that the argument of the learned Counsel is well founded and the Orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was without jurisdiction. Accordingly the Order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and confirmed by the, High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no Order as to Costs. 4. We find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the Respondent in which Orders were passed imposing punishment of withholding the increments. Without challenging the said Order in the appropriate forum, it was not open to the Respondent to file an Application before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to direct payment of Wages, which has already been withheld in the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, it has no right to sit in Appeal and to set aside the Order of withholding of increments passes in the disciplinary proceedings. In our view, the High Court has not correctly appreciated the issues raised before it and the view of the High Court that the Orders dated 24.2.1984, 1.6.1984 and 4.6.1985 have to be ignored since according to the High Court they were passed without following the due procedure, cannot be sustained. In our view, the appropriate remedy available to the Respondent either to file a Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority or to avail such other remedy in accordance with law, but certainly not to file an Application before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. We are, thus, of the view, that the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the Civil Revision filed by the Respondent.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]4. We find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the Respondent in which Orders were passed imposing punishment of withholding the increments. Without challenging the said Order in the appropriate forum, it was not open to the Respondent to file an Application before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to direct payment of Wages, which has already been withheld in the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, it has no right to sit in Appeal and to set aside the Order of withholding of increments passes in the disciplinary proceedings. In our view, the High Court has not correctly appreciated the issues raised before it and the view of the High Court that the Orders dated 24.2.1984, 1.6.1984 and 4.6.1985 have to be ignored since according to the High Court they were passed without following the due procedure, cannot be sustained. In our view, the appropriate remedy available to the Respondent either to file a Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority or to avail such other remedy in accordance with law, but certainly not to file an Application before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. We are, thus, of the view, that the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the Civil Revision filed by the Respondent.