UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI Vs. SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment dated 4-3-1965 of the District Judge, Bareilly, dismissing its appeal and conforming of the judgment of the trial court decreeing the plaintiff respondent's suit for a sum of Rs. 2,622.00 as arrears of pay with proportionate costs against the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent, namely, Shyam Sunder Sharma, was an employee of the Northern Railway, at Moradabad as a cleaner in the Loco Department on a pay of Rs. 70.00 per month. His services were terminated by the authority concerned by a notice dated 14-8-1950. Shyam Sunder Sharma thereupon filed suit No 217 Of 1953 on 23-5-1953 for a declaration that his dismissal was , illegal and void and that he continued to be in the service of the Northern Railway. The suit was decreed on 10-9-1956 but it appears that the decree was ignored by the Railway Authorities. Shyam Sunder Sharma, therefore, put the decree in execution and prayed for recovery of costs awarded to him under the aforesaid decree, for his reinstatement and also for recovery of arrears of pay with effect from 24-4-1950. The appellant filed objection in the execution court regarding the claim of Shyam Sunder Sharma to be reinstated and for arrears of pay. It appears that the objections raised by the defendants were upheld and the execution case was dismissed. It may be mentioned that the defendants deposited in the execution court the costs awarded to the plaintiff decree-holder in the previous suit before the dismissal of the execution case. As the defendants neither allotted any work to the plaintiff nor paid any amount as pay inspite of the decree in the previous suit, the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on 23-9-1958 (Suit No. 51 of 1958) for recovery of arrears of pay with effect from 24-4-1950 at the rate of 70.00 per month and for his reinstatement and allotment of duties by the defendants. As mentioned, the suit has been decreed only for a portion of the pay claimed as arrears of pay.

(3.) The only question of law raised in this Court is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that Sec. 22 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit of the nature filed by the plaintiff as the main relief claimed in the plaint was for arrears of pay or wages which could have been recovered by an application under Sec. 15 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the other reliefs for reinstatement to the post which the plaintiff was holding on the date he was served with the notice of dismissal, or for allotment of duties, are merely ancillary reliefs not claimed in good faith and intentionally added to avoid the bar under Sec. 22 of the Act. It was pointed out that under Sec. 15 of the Act arrears of pay could be claimed before the amendment within six months from the date it became due and after the amendment within one year from the date on which the pay became due. As has been pointed out, in this case, the plaintiff claimed that his pay had not been paid from 24-4-1950 and the suit was filed on 23-9-1958, after more than eight years.