DHANJI RAM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Dhanji Ram Sharma against the order of Shri J.S. Bedi. District Judge, Delhi, dismissing his appeal against the order of Shri R.S. Bindra, purporting to act as Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, IV of 1936.

(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner was employed as a Ticket Collector by the Northern Railway and was posted as such at Delhi (Main) Railway Station. He apparently joined service in November, 1950, in the grade 55--3--85/4- 125--5--130 in addition to dearness allowance permissible under the rules. Some proceedings were taken against him as a result of which he seems to have been removed from service in April, 1954, by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Delhi. A suit was thereupon filed by him assailing the validity of the order of removal which was decreed by the Court on 28th February, 1957. The petitioner thereupon approached his Department for reinstatement and it is stated in the order of the teamed District Judge that he was reinstated on the forenoon of 20th July, 1957. I may here mention that Shri R.S. Bindra, Authority under, the Payment of Wages Act, has also expressly mentioned in his order that the petitioner was reinstated on the fore-noon of 20th July, 1957. Wages for the period 20th July, 1957, to 2nd December, 1957, were admittedly paid to him, but for the period intervening the date of his removal and his subsequent reinstatement, he was not paid any wages. This omission led him to fife an application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act in which he claimed a sum of Rs. 5,059-13-0 on account of unpaid wages for the period 16th April, 1954, to 19th July, 1957. The Authority allowed him full claim except the amount demanded on account of house allowance and city allowance with respect to which, in the opinion of the authority, the petitioner, could only claim relief by means of a regular suit. In this view of the matter, a sum of Rs. 4,473-5-0 only was allowed to the petitioner.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner took the matter on appeal to the learned District Judge who affirmed the order of the Authority by observing that the house allowance and the city allowance do not form part of wages within the contemplation of the Payment of Wages Act. It is against this refusal on the part of the Authority and the District Judge to allow him house allowance and city allowance that the present petition Is directed.