K P MUSHRAN Vs. B C PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions challenge certain orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the facts which I am about to state do cot redound very much to the credit of the railway authorities who are the employers.

(2.) RESPONDENT 2, who is the employee, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act on 19-2-1949, and the railway authorities passed an order on 23-2-1919, suspending respondent 2 from service. On 1. 6. 1949, respondents was released from detention, and the period of suspension ended on l5-1-1950. Under certain rules, the employee was compelled to go on leave from 16-1-1950 to 11. 6. 1950, on full pay, from 12. 6. 1950, to 7-10-1950, on half pay, and from 8-10-1950 without any pay at all. Even to day this employee is on compulsory leave and no pay is being given to him. He has not been charged with having committed any act which is contrary to the rules of service, and no result of any departmental enquiry if a departmental enquiry has indeed been held has been communicated to him. The employee went before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming that ho was entitled to his full wages throughout the period as he was in the service of the railway authorities. With regard to the suspension period, he was paid a certain allowance but which is described as a subsistence allowance but which is less than the wages to which he was entitled and he claimed for that period full wages. With regard to the period from 16-4-1950 to 11-6-1950, he was given lull pay, and no claim was made by the employee with regard to that period. Hut from 12-6-1950 to 7-8-1950, he was given only half his wages, and he made a claim for the remaining half; and from 8-10-1950, he claimed the full wages to which be was entitled. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act ordered the railway authorities to pay to the employee his full wages without any deduction.

(3.) NOW, we have had occasion to consider the general provisions of the Payment of Wages Act in Sarin v. Patil, 63 Bom. L. R. 674. But it would perhaps be necessary again to draw attention to some of the important provisions of the Act. The scheme of the Act is, to compel employers, who have employed certain persons drawing certain wages to make prompt and full payment of the wages to which these employees are entitled. The only deductions which an employer is entitled to mate from the wages of his employee are the deductions referred to in Section 7 and elaborated in Sections 8 to 13, because Section 7 itself is mandatory in its terms and states that, notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-section (a) of Section 47, Railways Act, 1690, the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorised by or under this Act. Now, Sub-section (a) of Section 47, Railways Act authorised the railway authorities to punish an employee committing a breach of any of the rules with a fine which may extend to any sum not exceeding Rs. 60 and in the case of a breach of certain specific rules the power was given to the authorities to forfeit a-railway servant's pay not exceeding one month's pay. Now, the only power which the employer has under the Payment of Wages Act to impose a fine is the power given expressly under Section 8 Therefore, the only fine that the employer can impose is the fine specified in Section 8 of the Act. Further, under Section 241, Sub clause (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the conditions of service of persons serving His Majesty in a civil capacity in India shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be such as may he prescribed by rules made by the various authorities mentioned in that sub-section, But there is a proviso to this section which is contained in Sub-section (4), and that provides that, notwithstanding anything in this section, but subject to any other provision o? this Act, Acts of the appropriate Legislature in India may regulate the conditions of service of persons serving His Majesty in a civil capacity in India, and any rules made under this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. Now, the view taken by the Authority was that the Payment of Wages Act was an Act which is contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, and that, to the extent that any of the rules framed by the railway authorities are inconsistent with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act must prevail over the rules framed by the railway authorities under Section 241, Sub-clause (2 ). Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, jurisdiction is conferred upon the Authority to hear and decide all claims arising out of deduction from the wages or delay in the payment of the wages. The Act lays down various periods at the end of which wages must be paid to the employees, and, as I said before, it also sets out the various permissible deductions and provides that, apart from these deductions, there is a clear and unequivocal obligation upon the employer to pay the wages in full. Therefore, if an employer fails to pay wages at the time indicated in the Act, then he would be guilty of delay in payment, and the Authority can compel him to pay the wages. If, on the other hand, he pays the wages but he deducts from the wages any unauthorised deduction, then also the Authority would have jurisdiction to compel the employer to pay the full wages. Section 22 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts, and no suit for recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages could be maintained in any Courts in so far as the sum so claimed could have been recovered by an application under Section 16 of the Act to the Authority constituted under the statute. "wages" is defined as all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to the person employed, and if this payment is in respect of his employment or of the work done in such employment.