GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB ROADWAYS, NAWASHAHR, DISTRICT JALANDHAR AND ANOTHERS Vs. BALDEV MITTAL, CONDUCTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this revision against the judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, challenging the order mainly on the ground that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with and decide the issue under the Payment of Wages Act.

(2.) Respondent, Baldev Mittal, who was working as a Conductor, was awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment by the competent authority, which was challenged by him under the Payment of Wages Act (for short, "the Act").

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the wages of the respondent were ordered to be deducted through various orders of different dates starting from 1974 to 1983. The respondent challenged these orders on the grounds that these are non-speaking order and were never communicated to him. He further pleaded that no notice or charge sheet was ever served on him and that no enquiry was conducted. He accordingly filed an application under Section 15 of the Act for issuance of a direction to the respondent to refund his wages. The authority exercising powers under the Act, through its judgment dated 19.2.1986, came to hold that withholding of some of the increments was not legal and was unauthorised. Accordingly, it partly allowed the petition as some of the deductions were held authorised as well. This was impugned by respondent, Baldev Mittal, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The plea of jurisdiction of the authority to deal with the issue under the Act was also raised. It was pleaded that the orders impugned were against the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, however, dismissed the appeal by holding that the authority was justified in observing that the orders were non- speaking and would not stand the test of law laid down in Ram Dass Chaudhary, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon v. State of Punjab and another,1968 SLR 792. He, however, partly accepted the appeal by holding that deduction made through order dated 14.4.1977, 16.10.1980 and 8.7.1973 were also unauthorised and as such, the appellantrespondent was held entitled to wages qua these orders, preceding 12 months of the presentation of the original application. This order is impugned in the present revision petition.