GANESHI RAM Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of three respective writ petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan challenging the orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936) (hereafter referred to as the Act) on their respective applications made before it. The appeals raise common questions of law and are based on substantially similar facts. We would, therefore, refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 331 where the appellant is Ganeshi Ram, and deal with the common question. Our decision in Civil Appeal No. 331 will govern the decision of the two other companion appeals.

(2.) THE appellant was employed in the service of the then Jodhpur Railway. He was suspended from service on 3/02/1950 and finally removed from service on 24/02/1950. He preferred an appeal against this order terminating his service, but it appears that while his appeal was pending the impugned older of removal from service was set aside on 30/04/1954 and he was reinstated on 1/05/1954. On the same day, however, he was resuspended and an enquiry was held against him. Eventually on 7/12/1954, he has been reinstated in service. When the order of removing him from service was set aside on 1/05/1954, the Assistant Personnel Officer directed that the said order of removal should be cancelled and Ganeshi Ram should be put hack on duty with immediate effect and posted as gangman in permanent extra gang MWT. THE order then added that the period of Ganeshi Ram's absence from the date of his removal from service to the date he was put back to duty will be treated as leave without pay. After the fresh enquiry was held and it was decided to reinstate Ganeshi Ram a similar order was passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur Division, on 7/12/1954. This order stated that it was decided to reinstate Ganeshi Ram with immediate effect and it was added that the period of his absence from 24/02/1950 to 30/04/1954, which had already been treated as leave without pay would be so treated and that for the periods of his suspension from 3/02/1950 to Febr 23/02/1950 and from 1/05/195 4/12/1954, he would not be entitled to any more payment. In the present case we are concerned with the appellants claim for wages from 24/02/1950 to 30/04/1954.

(3.) IN the High Court four questions were raised for decision by the parties before it. The appellant and his colleagues who had made similar writ petitions before the High Court had impleaded to their writ petitions as respondent 1 the authority under the Act and as respondent 2 the General Manager. Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi. IN the writ petitions thus filed it was prayed that a writ of certiorari and other appropriate writ or direction or order to quash the decision of the authority should be issued and the authority may be asked to issue direction for the payment of proper amounts due to the petitioners. It was urged by respondent 2 before the High Court that the writ petitions were incompetent because an appeal lay against the order of the authority. It was also urged on the merits that the deductions in question were justified and as such there was no substance in the claim made in the writ petitions. IN other words, the plea was that the authority was fully justified in rejecting the applications made before it by the petitioners. On these pleadings four points were framed for decision by the High Court. The High Court held that the writ petitions were not incompetent, but on the merits it came to the conclusion that the orders passed by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Jadhpur Division and the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur Division, amounted to deductions required to be made by order of an authority competent to make such an order and as such they fell under S. 7 (2) (h) of the Act. That being so, according to the High Court the writ petitions could not succeed on the merits.