DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent made a claim for Rs. 1,637.83 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) against the Petitioner pertaining to his remuneration for the suspension period from 21st September, 1968 to 3rd December; 1969 and the loss resulting from stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for a period of three years with effect from 26th August, 1970. The authority held that the claim for wages for the suspension period was barred by time and the loss of increment benefit having been backed by a valid order of stoppage could not be entertained by the authority under the Act. The Respondent went up in appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Ambala. The revision petition filed by the Petitioner was admitted for hearing by a Division Bench because the view taken by me in Divisional Superintendent Northern Railway Delhi etc. v. Ram Kishan etc. 1973 CLJ 693 was doubted.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to Sections 7 and 15 of the Act, and argued that the authority under the Act exercised summary jurisdiction for ordering the payment of wages to an employee and in this jurisdiction it cannot question the legality of the orders passed by the employer who is a statutory authority. The material portion of Section 7 of the Act reads as under:

(3.) MR . Shant, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the aforementioned view ran counter to the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Delhi Division v. Mukand Lal : A.I.R. 1957 P&H 130. We are unable to accept this contention. In the Full Bench case, the legality of the order of suspension was not under challenge. In the instant case, as already observed, the impugned orders were prima facie violative of principles of natural justice and the rules. No elaborate enquiry was needed to determine their legality. In such a situation, the authorities under the Act could ignore these orders while considering the claim made by the employee.