UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHHAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Union of India against the order of the District Judge, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) by which his application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) Chhagan Lal, respondent No. 1, was an employee of the Central Railway Administration. His case was that he sustained injury during the course of employment and hence could not attend to his duties. The Railway Doctor, however, gave him fitness certificate. Chhagan Lal joined duty thereafter and again absented himself from duty as according to him he had not been cured. He remained absent from duty from 7th July, 1966 to 16th August, 1966. When he was discharged from the hospital he joined for two days and again became absent from 19th July, 1966 to 18th November, 1966. For the period from 19th July, 1966 to 18th November, 1966, the Central Railway Administration did not pay him wages and hence Chhagan Lal filed the application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, claiming Rs. 515/- as the deducted wages and an equal amount of Rupees 515/- by way of compensation. According to the Railway Administration, the absence from duty was unauthorised and the employee was not entitled to any payment for this period.

(3.) The Authority held on a consideration of evidence produced in the case, that in the departmental enquiry the Enquiry Officer had found that Chhagan Lal was absent from duty without justification, and that this finding had remained unchallenged by the applicant before any higher authority of the Railway Administration. Accordingly, the Authority held that the departmental order directing the deduction of wages for absence of the applicant from duty had remained unchallenged and became final. The Authority also found that the applicant Chhagan Lal had not moved any application before the Railway Administration for leave for the period of his absence, nor his absence had been regularised or converted into leave. On these findings, the Authority was of the opinion that the application was not maintainable as he had no jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction made by the Railway Administration was justified or not. The application was, therefore, dismissed.