JUDGMENT
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing the impugned order dated 28.1.1984 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 4 by virtue of which the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order dated 14.2.1983 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 3, was allowed and the order dated 14.2.1983, allowing the application filed by the petitioner under the Payment of Wages Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Lal Chand was working as a Driver with respondent No. 2. On 6.12.1979 he applied for one month’s leave, through proper channel. After availing the leave, when he reported back to his duties on 6.1,1980, he came to know that his leave for the said period was not sanctioned by the General Manager and also a telegram was sent to the him for reporting back on duty, which, in fact was never received by the petitioner. Thereafter, as alleged in the petition, without holding any proper enquiry under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 6.8.1980, on the ground of absence from duty. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 by way of filing an appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 7.7.1981 (Annexure P-l) and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service and it was further directed that the period for which the petitioner remained out of service be treated as leave for the kind due. It has been further alleged that the said order was not passed on the basis of any consent given by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application Under Section 15 of the Act before respondent No. 3, claiming payment of the pay and allowances for the above said period of absence, from respondent No. 1, which was allowed vide order dated 14.2.1983 and it was directed to pay a total sum of Rs. l9,024,80ps. i.e. Rs. 9,512.40 Ps. as pay and allowances and equal amount of Rs. 9,512.40 as compensation, to the petitioner, within one month. The Departmental Authorities went in appeal Under Section 17 of the Act before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 4, who, as noticed above, allowed the appeal of the Department and ordered dismissal of the application of the petitioner filed Under Section 15 of the Act. Hence this writ petition.
3. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed jointly reply. It has been averred that the present petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has not exhausted the departmental remedy of filing an appeal before the Secretary, Transport Department, Haryana, Chandigarh under the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The petitioner though not in explicit terms but impliedly consented to this period being treated as leave of the kind due and had received the payment of salary for the period he remained out of service, after computation of his leave of the kind due and as such he is estopped from raising such a plea. It is further averred that since the petitioner was not exonerated and the reinstatement order was passed by respondent No. 2 on sympathetic ground, the competent authority could not treat the period of absence as the one spent on duty because of the bar created by Rule 7.3(5) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-I, Part-I. Thus, dismissal of the petition has been sought.
4. On 6.7.2005 none had appeared on behalf of the parties and the case was adjourned to 31.8.2005 with a notice to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the event of his non-appearance, the case will be taken up. The situation remains to be same even today and no body has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The present petition is pending since 1984. Therefore, I do not find any justification to adjourn the matter any further.
5. I have heard learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and gone through the paper book carefully.
6. It is not in dispute that on account of absence, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority, It is also not in dispute that he preferred an appeal wherein taking a sympathetic view he was reinstated with the observation that the period for which he remained out of service be treated as leave of the kind due. He approached the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming wages for the said period, who passed a favourable order but the same was set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1. The moot question under consideration is whether the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed under the Disciplinary proceeding? This issue was under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 1998, titled as The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Karam Singh, decided on 26.11.1997 wherein, after the enquiry, order of the punishment was passed, ordering stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect and the workman approach the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of the amount so with-held and the application was dismissed as it was not maintainable. However, in appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and directed the payment of amount so with-held and the said order was also up-held by the High Court in revision and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the authority under Payment of Wages Act has no authority to interfere with the order passed under the disciplinary proceedings. The said view has been followed in the case of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ropar v. Swaran Singh 2001(3) R.S.J. (P&H) 41, wherein it has also been observed that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to pass order under the disciplinary proceedings by a competent authority. The ratio of judgments in Karam Singh’s case and Swaran Singh’s (supra) are duly applicable in the present case. It is held that it is not open to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act to go into the legality of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority unless they have been set aside in a proper forum.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.