UNION OF INDIA Vs. L M PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is for quashing of the order dated January 27, 1967, passed by the appellate authority prescribed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 whereby the Authority held in favour of the respondents 2 and 3, the original applicants, that they were entitled to their full wages for the period of suspension and that the deductions made from their salaries for the period of suspension were illegal deductions. The authority, therefore, ascertained and directed payment of these deductions subsequently by the order dated March 27, 1967.

(2.) The relevant facts which lead to this petition are as follows : In July, 1960 a general strike of railway workers took place. The strike was an illegal strike. L. M. Pinto and D. S. Korgaonkar, being respectively respondents 2 and 3 to this petition and the original applicants before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act were alleged to have taken part in this strike on July 16, 1960. They were arrested by the police and subsequently prosecuted under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Essential Services Maintenance ordinance No. 1 of 1960 and S. 506 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order of suspension dated July, 1960 they were suspended from service. On August 24, 1960 in connection with the offence under the above said ordinance L. M. Pinto was discharged. The prosecution against both the above applicants for the above two offences failed and they were ordered to be acquitted by the Magistrate's Court on January 17, 1961. They began to attend duty from January 20, 1961. An order dated January 23, 1961 was passed by the Chief Personnel Officer whereby the order of suspension dated July 16, 1960 was revoked with effect from January 21, 1961 being the date on which they reported to the office for duty. They were further informed that they were liable to disciplinary action as may be ultimately decided upon. The case of the Government is that subsequently by the order dated February 3, 1961 punishment of censure was passed against these two respondents. The question which arose before the Appellate Authority and in this petition relates to the true construction and effect of an order dated February 21, 1961, the relevant part whereof runs as follows :

(3.) The Payment of Wages Authority formulated the points arising before him in paragraph 5 of the order dated February 26, 1964 in the following words : "Whether the deductions are unauthorised and illegal under the Payment of Wages Act". In the order the authority referred to Rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code and the scheme relating to suspension of and suspended railway servants as contained in Appendix 31 contained in the Railway Manual and held that the above referred order dated February 22, 1962 was an order made by a competent authority directing the deductions to be made from the salaries due to the applicants for the periods of their suspension from service. The Authority, therefore, by that order dismissed the applications of the respondents 2 and 3. Two separate appeals filed by respondents being Appeal No. 24 of 1964 and Appeal No. 35 of 1964 were disposed of by the appellate authority by the judgment and impugned order dated January 27, 1967, whereby it was held that the order dated 3rd February, 1961 imposing penalty of censure on each of the applicants and the order dated February 21, 1961 directing that the period of suspension mentioned in the order in respect of each of the applicants would remain as suspension period only were null and void order for the reasons recorded by the appellate authority in paragraphs 12 to 15 of its order. It was, therefore, held that deductions sought to be made on the basis of these orders were illegal deductions. It was, therefore, found that the applicants were entitled to full wages for the period of suspension and directions for payments were made as already referred above.