GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY Vs. SWAROOPRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected revisions arising out of proceedings under the payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called the Act ). They were laid before a learned single Judge of this Court and he has referred them to a Divisional Bench because of the far reaching importance of the points of law arising in them.

(2.) BEFORE we deal with the points of law raised at the Bar, we should like to set down briefly the facts. One Swaroopraj (Civil Revision No. 90) was an employee of the Northern Railway and was posted as Assistant Station Master at Railway station Mundwa. He was suspended on charges of corruption on 29-1-1953. Later he was prosecuted in Court and was acquitted by the Special Judge on 30-4-1955. Thereafter he was reinstated on 9-5-1955. He claimed the full salary for the period from 29-1-1953 to 9-5-1955 and also other benefits. This claim was rejected by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur on the ground that Swaroopraj had not been honourably acquitted. Thereupon he made an application under Section 15 of the Act before the authority appointed to hear such applications. The application was opposed on behalf of the railway. The authority, however, allowed the application in part and ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,605/- be paid to Swaroopraj as wages. There was then an appeal by the railway to the District Judge which failed. Hence the revision.

(3.) THE facts of the other case (Civil Revision No. 91) are similar. This case relates to Daulal who was a peon in the Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur. The charge against him was that he was caught stealing some paper belonging to the railway on 4-10-1951. He was thereupon prosecuted under Section 381 of the indian Penal Code and convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class. On appeal, however, he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge on 3-6-1955. After his acquittal, he was reinstated with effect from 13-2-1956 by the Works Manager. That officer, however, ordered that the period of suspension would not be treated as spent on duty, with the result that Daulal was only allowed suspension allowance for the whole period up to 13-2-1956. He, therefore, made an application under Section 15 of the Act. This application was opposed by the railway, but the Authority under the Act allowed it in part and ordered a sum of rs. 1,072/- to be paid to Daulal. There was an appeal to the District Judge, which failed. Consequently, this revision.