RAM PRAKASH AGNIHOTRI Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff was employed by the Western Railway and he was dismissed by an order dated 2-5-1949, but he was reinstated on 18-4-1950. He was again dismissed on 19-8-1950 and was again reinstated on 3-2-1951. For both these periods the plaintiff was not paid his salary as this period was treated 'dias non.' The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit in the civil court for the recovery of the salary. The suit was decreed by the court below but has been dismissed by the lower appellate court as barred under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. This second appeal was, therefore, filed by the plaintiff and it was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court who has referred following question for our consideration. "Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act?"

(2.) SECTION 15 (1) of the said Act provides for appointment of a Commissioner etc. as the authority for deciding such cases. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is relevant and is as follows:

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that this non-payment of his wages does not amount to a deduction from his wages but is non-payment of the whole salary and is, therefore, not covered by Section 16 (2) quoted above. We are unable to agree with this line of argument. When the plaintiff after once being dismissed from service was reinstated by the authority itself the authority by necessary implication admitted that his service continued and as such he would normally be entitled to his wages. But the authority did not pay the wages either fully or partly for some reason which they described as for period 'dias non'. By using this term the Railway obviously means that those days are not to be counted because the defendant did not work. There is no such rule which may be said to be a part of the agreement with the plaintiff that on any date on which the plaintiff did not work he would not be entitled to his wages. Thus the reason given for non-payment of the wages for those days was not a good reason and was, therefore, an unjustified deduction from the wages of the plaintiff. Wherever wages are due and they are withheld for some reason or the other it is clearly a case of deduction of wages and if the reason for deducting the wages is not an authorised reason under Section 7 then the employee has a remedy under Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act.