DIVN SUPDT CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. ONKARNATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against a reversing appellate order dated 6 August 1963 whereby the District Judge, Jabalpur, acting under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act), set aside an order of the Payment of Wages Authority dated 30 June 1962 and instead directed the applicants to refund to the non-applicant Rs. 2,973.96 which had been, so it was found, wrongfully deducted and also to pay to him Rs. 700 as compensation.

(2.) THE facta giving rise to this revision may be shortly stated. At the material time, the non-applicant was employed as a Weighment Clerk in the Central Railway and worked at Katni He was suspended with effect from 27 April 1957, a departmental enquiry was held against him and he was removed from service from 12 July 1957. He successfully challenged the order of his removal from service in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4 of 1958 dated 3 July 1959 and this Court quashed that order with the consequence that he was taken back on duty on 27 August 1959. When he asked for his wages from 27 April 1957 to 26 August 1959 amounting to Rs. 3,914.75, only a sum of Rs 940.79 was paid to him. Since the remaining amount of Rs. 2,973.96 was deducted, the non-applicant filed an application under section 15 (2) of the Act for a direction for its refund and also for compensation. While the Payment of Wages Authority dismissed that application on the ground that the deduction was permissible under rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code, the District Judge took a different view and passed the impugned order.

(3.) THE only other point argued before me is that the compensation awarded is excessive. THE amount of compensation is in the discretion of the authorities constituted under the Act and there should be no interference in revision when, while the relevant enactment contemplates that compensation could be up to ten times the amount deducted, the compensation actually awarded in this case is only a fraction of that amount.