LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-1

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GIAN CHAND CONDUCTOR

Decided On April 30, 2003
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
GIAN CHAND, CONDUCTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present revision petition, the State of Punjab has challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dated 5th December, 1990 and the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 8th January, 1990, by which the order dated 15th April, 1983 was held to be illegal and the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was also held to be illegal by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar vide order dated 15th April, 1983 ordered the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect of the respondent. The order dated 15th April, 1983 was challenged by the respondent before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jalandhar who vide order dated 8th January, 1990 held that the deductions by virtue of the order dated 15th April, 1983 were illegal. This order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who also vide order dated 5th December, 1990 dismissed the appeal filed by the State. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(3.) SHRI Vipin Mahajan, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab contends that the order dated 15th April, 1983 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar could not have been challenged before the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. He contends that vide the aforesaid order one increment with cumulative effect was ordered to be stopped. He relies on the judgment titled as State of Punjab and Ors. v. Baidev Singh, Conductor, 1999 (1) R. S. J. 201 to contend that the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings. It is, thus, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders dated 8th January, 1990 and 5th December, 1990 were without jurisdiction.