Back
High Court Of Delhi
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
KAMESHWAR DUBEY - Respondent
Civil 1705 of 1987
Decided On : 08/12/1987
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTION 15 - WAGES DEDUCTION - INTERPRETATION - WORKMAN'S RIGHT TO WAGES - EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY - COMPENSATION - DELAYED WAGES - DISTINCTION - INTENTION OF EMPLOYER - NOTICES SENT BY WORKMAN - DENIAL OF LIABILITY - PAYMENT ORDER - LEGAL PROVISIONS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
A railway employee, Kaineshwar Dubey (workman), was dismissed from service in 1974. He filed a suit for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal and void and that he continued to be in service. The suit was decreed in his favor, and the dismissal was held void. The workman was entitled to all service benefits. Despite the decree, the workman was not reinstated or paid his arrears of wages. He filed a petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, seeking payment of wages and compensation for deduction of wages. The authority under the Act directed the petitioner-Union of India to pay the workman Rs. 80,591.42 on account of wages and allowances and Rs. 1 lac as compensation for deduction of wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the wages in question were deducted wages and not delayed wages. The court found that the employer, Union of India, had denied the liability to pay the wages to the workman and had denied the workman's right to receive the same. The court also found that the employer had not responded to the various notices sent by the workman requesting for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of wages.
Issues: 1. Whether the wages in question were deducted wages or delayed wages? 2. Whether the employer had denied the liability to pay the wages to the workman and had denied the workman's right to receive the same?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wages in question were deducted wages and not delayed wages based on the following factors: - The employer's intention to deny the liability to pay the wages or to deny the workman's right to receive the same determines whether the wages are deducted wages or delayed wages. - In this case, the employer had not responded to the various notices sent by the workman requesting for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of wages, which indicated an intention to deny the liability to pay the wages. - The employer had also not paid the wages to the workman despite the decree in his favor, which further indicated an intention to deny the liability to pay the wages. 2. The court found that the employer had denied the liability to pay the wages to the workman and had denied the workman's right to receive the same based on the following factors: - The employer had not responded to the various notices sent by the workman requesting for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of wages. - The employer had not paid the wages to the workman despite the decree in his favor. - The employer had filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders directing the payment of wages and compensation to the workman.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the employer, Union of India, challenging the orders directing the payment of wages and compensation to the workman. The court held that the wages in question were deducted wages and not delayed wages, and that the employer had denied the liability to pay the wages to the workman and had denied the workman's right to receive the same. The court also directed the employer to release the compensation amount of Rs. 1 lac in favor of the workman forthwith.
( 1 ) RULE D. B. Respondent No. 1 Kaineshwar Dubey (hereinafter to be referred to as workman ) was a railway employee employed as Khalasi (casual labour) with effect from 20-12-1969 and was dismissed from service by an oral order dated 29-5-1974. He brought a suit being Suit No. 233 of 1975 against the petitioner Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, void, inoperative, mala fide and a nullity and that he continued to be in service of the railway as. if he was not dismissed at all and was further entitled to all other benefits of the service. The decree for the aforesaid declaration was granted on 13-10-1981 by Shri Z. S. Lohat, Sub Judge 1st Class as a result of which his dismissal from service was held as void and was further-held to have continued in service and also entitled to all the service benefits. This decree was passed after contest by the petitioner
( 3 ) THE first appeal (RCA No. 13/82) of the petitioner Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway against the aforesaid judgement and decree dated 13-10-81 of Shri Z. S Lohat, SJIC was dismissed on 27-9-1983 by others Shri J. B. Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi. Even the second appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 8-8-1984 in RSA 32 of 1984. Even the Special Leave Petition of the petitioner against the said decree and judgement was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20-1-1986.
( 4 ) AFTER having failed to be reinstated in service and not being paid his arrears of wages and other service benefits despite the aforesaid litigation ending every time in his favour, the workman filed a petition under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the Act) against the petitioner on 3-6-1985 and Shri M. K. Seth the authority under the Act made a direction on 7-8-1985 to the petitioner-Union of India to pay to the workman within one month of the order a sum of of Rs. 80,591. 42 on account of wages and allowances besides another sum of Rs. I lac as compensation for deduction of wages. This direction of the authority Shri N. K. Seth was ex parte as the petitioner-Union of India did not put up appearance despite service. The application of Union of India for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte direction of the authority Shri M. K. Seth was dismissed on 3-1-1986 by Shri M. K. Seth as highly frivolous and not maintainable at all. The petitioner Union of India then filed objections under S. 47 of the Cade of Civil Procedure on 15-4-1986 against the recovery of the amount and payment of the same to the workman but those objections were dismissed on 29-4-1986.
( 5 ) APPEALS under S. 17 of the Act against the judgement dated 7-8-1985 and the order dated 3-1-1986 both passed by the authority Shri M. K. Seth were filed by the Union of India on 28-4-1986 before Shri Lokeshwar Prasad, then Additionai District Judge, Delhi.
( 6 ) ON the stay application filed along with the appeals of Union of India under S. 17 of the Act, order was passed on 6-5-1986 directing deposit of the amount within a week with a further order that the amount shall not be released to the decree-holder workman till further orders.
( 7 ) THE workman moved an application on 1-4-1987 for immediate release of the amount deposited as the appeals against the order of the authority Shri M. K. Seth had been dismissed on 28-3-1987 by Shri Lokeshwar Prashad. Additional District Judge on the ground that the appeals were not competent before him as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, but that application was dismissed on 2-4-1987 by the successor authority Shri Asharfi Lal. The civil writ No. 1042187 was filed in the High Court by the workman against Shri Asharfi Lal, authority under the Act for the quashing of the order dated 2-4-87 and that writ petition was disposed of on 27-5-1987 with the direction that the amount laying in deposit be paid to the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
