HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the petitioner for wages from August 1992 to November 1992 has failed in respondents appeal before the learned Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 04.12.1996 against the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 (for short 'the Act') which ruled in his favour. The petitioner was a legal Assistant working in the Punjab Roadways. He was transferred from Batala to Jalandhar in 1992 by an administrative order but failed to join his place of posting. He was informed on 04.08.1992 vide DO Letter No. 2607-09/LO to join duties at the place of posting. The petitioner failed to abide by the letter. The Authority under the Act, took the view that the deduction of salary was illegal because no formal order was passed withholding salary for the aforesaid disputed period. In appeal, the view of the authority has been reversed primarily on two grounds. Firstly, on the maintainability of the claim keeping in view the salary of the petitioner which was more than the ceiling limit of Rs. 1600 per month prescribed by the Act and, therefore, the Act did not apply in its pecuniary jurisdiction. Secondly, the DO letter (Exhibit R-1) was sufficient notice to the petitioner to join at the place of posting making known to him what the adverse consequences could be of not reporting at the place of posting and submitting the joining report. In this way the deduction of salary for the four months period, or better still, its non payment can hardly be said to be an illegal deduction from salary inviting the wrath of provisions of the Act since he failed to perform work during the period involved. In the circumstances the present case cannot be said to be a case of illegal deduction of wages. Deduction means wages lawfully due on performance of work assigned but illegally withheld for the period worked. But this is not the case here. Much more importantly, the transfer and posting order was not challenged by the petitioner in a court of law or set aside by it. Neither was it varied, modified or rescinded by the administrator on a request made through representation demanding justice or by exercise of power sue mote to correct a wrong done. So long as the order remains in operation, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain of an illegal deduction from salary by the employer. The claim thus did not verily lie before the authority set up under the Act. Then the question of applicability of the prescribed ceiling limits on wages in order to attract the provisions of the Act need not be gone into or examined in this petition.

(2.) Thus this Court does not find the reasons contained in the order of the learned Court below illegal, perverse or irrational in the findings recorded on the issues presented. The practical effect of the DO letter dated 4th August, 1992 is as good as a formal order in its early warning, the consequences of absence from duty without leave are too well accepted and are presumed to be known to the petitioner, a Government servant whose services are governed by statutory rules. All that was required of the employer was to put the public servant to constructive notice. The result stands achieved. If he failed to join his duty for four months in disobedience of the transfer order he did so at his own peril and can have no longer a valid grouse against the Punjab Roadways of being denied wages not earned by him at the place of posting.