Deductions from wages are permissible under Section 7(2)(h) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, if made by a competent authority under a statutory rule.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : These three appeals arise out of three respective writ petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan challenging the orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936) (hereafter referred to as the Act) on their respective applications made before it. The appeals raise common questions of law and are based on substantially similar facts. We would, therefore, refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 331 where the appellant is Ganeshi Ram, and deal with the common question. Our decision in Civil Appeal No. 331 will govern the decision of the two other companion appeals.

2. The appellant was employed in the service of the then Jodhpur Railway. He was suspended from service on February, 3, 1950 and finally removed from service on February 24, 1950. He preferred an appeal against this order terminating his service, but it appears that while his appeal was pending the impugned older of removal from service was set aside on April 30, 1954 and he was reinstated on May 1, 1954. On the same day, however, he was resuspended and an enquiry was held against him. Eventually on December 7, 1954, he has been reinstated in service. When the order of removing him from service was set aside on May 1, 1954, the Assistant Personnel Officer directed that the said order of removal should be cancelled and Ganeshi Ram should be put hack on duty with immediate effect and posted as gangman in permanent extra gang MWT. The order then added that the period of Ganeshi Ram s absence from the date of his removal from service to the date he was put back to duty will be treated as leave without pay. After the fresh enquiry was held and it was decided to reinstate Ganeshi Ram a similar order was passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur Division, on December 7, 1954. This order stated that it was decided to reinstate Ganeshi Ram with immediate effect and it was added that the period of his absence from February 24, 1950 to April 30, 1954, which had already been treated as leave without pay would be so treated and that for the periods of his suspension from February 3, 1950 to February 23, 1950 and from May 1, 1954 to December 7, 1954, he would not be entitled to any more payment. In the present case we are concerned with the appellants claim for wages from February 24, 1950 to April 30, 1954.

3. At this stage we may add that rule 2044 (F. R. 54) (1) provides, inter alia, that where a railway servant who had been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order, amongst other things, regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the railway servant for the period of his absence from duty, and it authorises him to make such order in respect of such period as he may deem fit. Since this point has not been disputed before us it is unnecessary to set out the relevant rule and to consider its effect.

4. The appellant applied to the District Magistrate Jodhpur, who is the authority under the Act, under S. 15 alleging that it was a case of illegal deduction of his wages and claiming an older for the payment of proper amount to him for the said period. The defence raised by the Railway was that the impugned deduction was allowable under S. 7 (2) (h). It was a deduction required to be made by an authority competent to make such an order, and so it was urged that the application made by the appellant for the recovery of his wages during the period in question was misconceived. The authority who heard the application upheld the plea raised in defence and dismissed the application. It was held that the deduction made was authorised and permissible and so there was no cause of action for the claim made by the appellant. It is the correctness and validity of this order passed by the authority under the Act that was challenged by the appellant by his writ petition before the Rajasthan High Cour