JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By order dated 5.11.2007 Sri Lalji Sinha, counsel for the petitioners wanted to confirm whether the decree has been executed for non-compliance of the order or whether the amount has been deposited and prayed that the matter be heard on the next date. On his request the matter has been listed today. The order dated 5.11.2007 is as under:
Heard.
The respondent workman was working as driver in the North East Railway. He was suspended for certain misconduct on 16.1.1966 and subsequently removed from service. A suit was filed by him challenging the order of removal, which was decreed by Additional District Judge by order dated 25.4.1979.
It appears that the petitioner had filed a application dated 7.4.1980 before the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act under Section 15 of the Act claiming Rs. 16,000/- as wages with direction to respondents to pay Rs. 80,066.10 p. and Rs. 16333.70 p. as compensation which was allowed vide order dated 16.5.1984.
The petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the District Judge against the aforesaid order/direction dated 16.5.1984 of the Prescribed Authority. The workman also preferred an appeal against the order/direction. Both the appeals were considered and decided by order dated 9.7.1985. The District Judge has held that the workman was not entitled to remaining allowance during the period of his suspension. The petitioner preferred second appeal No. 1951 which was connected with present writ petition No. 15996/1985 filed against the order/direction dated 16.5.1984 and 9.7.1985.
In the second appeal, the appellants prayed that the operation of the decree of the Court below be stayed and/or pass such other and further order which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The Court vide order dated 18.12.1979 granted further time to deposit the amount. The order dated 18.12.1979 is as under:
Heard learned Counsel.
In the circumstances, the money required to be deposited under the Court’s order dated 30th July, 1979 may be deposited latest by 5th January, 1980. If the money is so deposited, the stay order shall continue to operate. If the money is not deposited by 15th January, 1980, the decree shall be executable forthwith without any further reference to this Court.
2. The writ petition No. 15996 of 1985 connected with the aforesaid second appeal praying for quashing the order dated 16.5.1984 and 9.7.1985 i.e. the order of removal, is listed today.
3. The second appeal is of the year 1979 and the writ petition, which is listed today before this Court is of the year 1985. Both are old cases. Sri Lalji Sinha, Advocate, states that he may confirm whether the decree has been executed for non-compliance of the order or whether the amount has been deposited and prays that the matter may be then heard on the next date.
As prayed, list in the next cause list.
4. Sri Lalji Sinha, counsel for the petitioners has confirmed in if compliance of the order of this Court dated 5.11.2007 aforesaid that the amount has not at all been deposited by the Railway which was awarded by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 80,066.10 paise towards wages and Rs. 16,333.70 paise as compensation.
5. It appears that an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was presented by Sri Prem Saran Kapoor against the General Manager, N.E. Railway, Union of India and others. By an earlier order the applicant’s claim for delayed wages Rs.80,066.10 paise, Rs. 8,051.74 as deducted wages and Rs.40,283.70 as compensation, total Rs. 1,28,401.54 paise was upheld.
6. The petitioners Union of India filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority on 5.3.88 remanded the matter back to the Court of Prescribed Authority for deciding the claim after framing following issues.
1. Whether the claim under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act itself was premature?
2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff Prem Saran Kapoor after filing of the suit was barred by provisions of the Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. w.e.f. the date of suspension to the date of the suit i.e. 17.8.1971?
3. Whether the plaintiff Prem Saran Kapoor is entitled to compensation, which may extend to ten times of the amount deducted/withheld as a consequence of suspension followed by removal?
7. The Prescribed Authority, accordingly framed aforesaid three issues on remand and also framed another additional issue No. 4 as to: “(4) whether the application not fall under the Payment of Wages Act?”
8. Issue No. 1 was decided by the Prescribed Authority holding t that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 25.4.79. The applicant filed application on 7.4.1980 i.e. well within the period of limitation was not premature.
9. Regarding issue No. 2 the Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding that in the present case the applicant filed a suit which was decreed by the Court and as such he was well within his rights to claim for wages for the period of suspension only after the order of removal was set aside by the competent Court, hence it is held that the suit was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.
10. Issue No. 3 was decided holding that as a matter of fact in the initial order passed by this Court the compensation was awarded not at the rate of ten time but at the rate of five times I do not think there has been any material change in the situation even now and order that a compensation of five times of the deducted amount will be allowed to the applicant Sri Prem Saran Kapoor.
11. Issue No. 4 was conceded by the Union of India as applicant Prem Saran Kapoor was drawing a salary which was less than Rs. 1,000/- per month at the time of filing of the suit. As therefore, the application was maintainable under the Payment of Wages Act and as such the aforesaid issue was decided against the Union of India.
12. The Prescribed Authority concluded the judgment by holding that-
As regards the question whether the applicant is entitled any amount on account of delayed wages. Attention has been drawn to proviso of Section 15(3) of the Act. This para says that no direction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed wages if the authority is satisfied that the delay was due to bonafide dispute as to the amount payable to the employee person. In this case it is admitted that there is a bonafide dispute between the parties as the Union of India has gone in appeal against the order of llnd Addl. District Judge passed on 25.4.1979. As such in my opinion the case is covered by the above proviso and the applicant is not entitled to any compensation for the amount delayed. Issue is decided accordingly.
Two Misc. Appeal Nos. 102 of 1984 and 94 of 1984, one by the employer and another by the workman were filed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.84 passed by the Prescribed Authority aforesaid before the Appellate Court which were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.7.85.
13. Aggrieved the employer has come up in this writ petition. Admittedly, according to the instructions, which have been received in writing by Sri Lalji Sinha, counsel for the petitioners in pursuance of the order of this Court wages have not been paid to the workman nor the amount has been deposited in the appeal. Neither the amount has been deposited nor certificate has been filed before filing of the appeal.
iwokZRrj jsyos
la0 lh@78@,l-,-@365@eSds@byk-@79
dk;kZy;
e.My jsy izcU/kd ¼dkfeZd½
bTtruxj] fn0& 6&12&07
Jh yky th flUgk]
Ofj0 jsyos vf/koDrk]
39] tktZ Vkmu] bykgkckn A
fo”k;%& lsdsUM vihy la0 1951@79 le{k gkbZdksVZ @ bykgkckn Hkkjr la?k cuke Jh ih0 ,l0 diwj lg fjV la0 15996 @ 85 A
lUnHZk%& egkizcU/kd ¼fof/k½ xksj[kiqj dk i= la[;k lh @ 78 @ ,y-vks- @ fel @ 96 fnukad 14-11-07
—
mijksDr fo”k;d ekeys esa fof/k vf/kdkjh ds mijksDr lanfHkZr i= ds vkyksd es jsy vf/koDrk eFkqjk ds ek/;e ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; eFkqjk ds U;k;ky; esa Qkby dk eqok;uk djus ds mijkUr lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk U;k;ky; esa lacfU/kr fefly dk eqok;uk fd;k x;k ,oa ik;k x;k fd V~k;y dksVZ eFkqjk esa dksbZ /kujkf’k ugha tek dh xbZ gS A
js0v0 ds i= dh izfr lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;’d dk;Zokgh gsrq izLrqr gS A
d`rs e.My jsy izcU/kd @ dkfeZd
bTtruxj
izfrfyfi egkizcU/kd ¼fof/k½ iwoksZRrj jsyos @ xksj[kiqj dk muds i= la0 lh@78@,y0vks0 fel@96 fnukad 14-11-07 ds lanHkZ esa lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf”kr A
d`rs e.My jsy izcU/kd @ dkfeZd
bTtruxj
The instructions dated 6.12.2007 received by Sri Lalji Sinha, counsel for the petitioners are taken cognizance of and are taken on record.
14. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 an appeal lies under Section 17 of the Act, which provides that-
An appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15, or against a direction made under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of that section may be preferred, within thirty days of the date on which the order or direction was made, in a Presidency town before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court-
(a) by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under Section 3, if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeds three hundred rupees or such direction has the effect of imposing on the employer or the other person a financial liability exceeding one thousand rupees.
(b) by an employed person or any legal practitioner or any official or a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person permitted by the authority to make an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 15, if the total amount of wages claimed to have been withheld from the employed person exceeds twenty rupees or from the unpaid group to which the employed person belongs or belonged exceeds fifty rupees, or
(c) by any person directed to pay a penalty under Sub-section (4) of Section 15.
(1A) No appeal under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall be unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the f direction appealed against.
(2) Save as provided in Sub-section (1), any order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15, or a direction made under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of that section shall be final.
(3) Where an employer prefers an appeal under this section, the authority against whose decision the appeal has been preferred may, and if so directed by the court referred to in Sub-section (1) shall, pending the decision of the appeal, withhold payment of any sum in deposit with it.
(4) The Court referred to in Sub-section (1), may if it thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the High Court and, if it so does, shall decide the question in conformity with such decision.
15. The position of law would be that as no appeal has been filed even otherwise, the Union of India was liable to deposit the amount in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 30th July, 1979 passed in Second Appeal No. 1951 of 1979 and thereafter by order dated 18.12.79 time was extended. The orders dated 30th July, 1979 and 18th December, 1979 passed in the Second appeal are as under:
30.7.79
Admit.
Issue notice.
The appeal is being admitted on the following questions of law:
(a) Whether the impugned order imposing a penalty on the respondent was invalid as held by the Lower appellate Court on the ground that it was not a reasoned order, though the reason for the order has been given subsequently?
(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the General Manager did not apply his mind before issuing the show cause notice and imposing penalty?” “18.12.79
Heard learned Counsel. In the circumstances the money required to be deposited under the Courts’order dated 30th July, 1979 may be deposited latest by 15th January, 1980. If the money is so deposited, the stay order shall continue to operate. If the money is not deposited by 15th January, 1980, the decree shall be executable forthwith without any further reference to this Court.
16. In view of the order dated 30.7.79 and 18.12.79 passed in the second appeal as well as instructions dated 6.12.2007 which have been received by Sri Lalji Sinha, Advocate that amount as required to be deposited under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and further in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court above; the interim order is no loner operating in the second appeal and subsequently there being no interim order in favour of the petitioners in this petition too, as a consequence, the petitioners are liable to pay the amount under directions issued by the Payment of Wages Authority to the workman concerned (since deceased) and is now represented by his legal heirs and representatives.
17. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Since the orders dated 30th July, 1979 and 18th December, 1979 passed in the Second Appeal and the order of this Court passed in the instant writ petition have not been complied with by the petitioners let the amount be recovered under the orders of the prescribed Authority as ordered vide order dated 16.5.84 with 9% simple interest with half yearly rest along with 6% compound interest per annum. The amount shall be paid to the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased workman by a bank draft within a period of one month from today. In case the amount is not paid within the time allowed by this Court, the same shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue within a further period of one month.
18. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within 3 days.