VIJAY SINGH SANKHLA Vs. R S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under a contract of apprenticeship dated April 26, 1976 the petitioner was engaged by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (The Board) for training in the trade of L.D.C. or in such other trade for which he may be found suitable after the period of probation designated under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The period of training was one year and during such period the petitioner was to receive a stipend of Rs. 100/- per month. In case of breach of the contract by the petitioner the amount of stipend received or such amount as was to be determined by the Board was refundable by him. Similarly, in case of breach of contract by the Board within a period of one year the petitioner was to receive Rs. 300/- as compensation. By Clause 5 of the contract it was, however, agreed by the parties that on completion of the period of apprenticeship training neither the Board was under any obligation to offer any employment to the petitioner nor the petitioner was obliged to accept an employment under the Board. The petitioner joined the apprentice-ship training on April 29, 1976 at Chittorgarh. After undergoing apprentice-ship training in the trade of L.D.C. for a period of about six months only the petitioner was considered suitable for appointment to the post of L.D.C. under the Board. Therefore, under its order No. RSEB/Estt/F/D. 1681 dated December 10, 1976 the petitioner was appointed as LDC temporarily for one year on a pay of Rs. 126/-per month in the pay scale of Rs. 126-8-150-10-250/- plus usual allowance. The petitioner had joined the said post on September 29, 1976. Subsequently, his appointment as a regular L.D.C. w.e.f. September 29, 1974 was regularised and he was allowed annual grade increments w.e.f. September 29 of each succeeding year. As and when there was any change in the grade and/or rate of annual grade increment and/or dearness allowance the petitioner was given benefit thereof.

(2.) In the year 1987, the Board, vide its order No. RSEB/E & R/F. 46(21)/D.29 dated October 21, 1987 revised the pay scale of its employees w.e.f. September 1986. The employees were given option to elect the revised pay scales in which case such employees as might have completed service for 10 years as on September 1, 1986 were to get the benefit of one advance increment in the fixation of their pay in the revised pay scales. The petitioner opted for the revised pay scale but in the fixation of his pay in the revised pay scale he was not allowed the benefit of one advance increment. The petitioner thereupon moved an application Under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (here-in-after referred to as 'The Act') before the Authority, appointed Under Section 15(1) of the Act, with the allegation that the payment of wages in the form of one advance increment plus consequential benefits was unjustly delayed in his case. He claimed a total sum of Rs. 2306/- in that behalf. The Board contested the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that since the petitioner had not completed the service of 10 years so as to become entitled to the advance increment and since his claim related to the matter of fixation of pay, the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon his claim. The Authority, however, accepted the claim of the petitioner and directed the Board Under Section 15(3) to pay to the petitioner the amount of delayed wages at Rs. 2306/- as also an equal amount by way of compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of his order dated August 12, 1988. The Board challenged the order of the Authority by preferring an appeal Under Section 17 before the Distt. Judge, Ajmer.

(3.) Before the Distt. Judge, Ajmer, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the Board had not deposited the amount of Rs. 4,612/- payable to the petitioner as per order of the Authority within a period of 30 days, the appeal was not maintainable. The learned Distt. Judge Ajmer with reference to the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act, rejected petitioner's objection held that the appeal was filed within time and that at the time of filing the appeal the memorandum of appeal was duly accompanied by a certificate of the Authority to the effect that the Board had deposited the amount payable to the petitioner as per directions appealed against. The same point has again been agitated (sic.) by the petitioner in the petition under Section 115 filed before this Court. On a study of the provisions contained in Section 17 (1) of the Act, I fully agree with the learned District Judge that the conditions precedent to the maintainability of an appeal under Section 17 of the Act is that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied with a certificate from the authority that the employer has deposited the amount payable to the employee under the direction under Section 15(3) of the Act. That condition was fully fulfilled in the present case and there is no force in the objection raised by the petitioner in that behalf. The ground raised in that respect before this Court is therefore dismissed.