P. N. BHAGWATI, N. G. SHELAT, J.

( 1 ) THE principal question which arises in these petitions relates to the scope and ambit of the power of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to an application made by an employed person for deducted wages under sec. 15 where the claim for deduction is sought to be supported by the employer by reference to the provisions of sec. 7 (2) (h ). The facts giving rise to the petitions are identical save for the name of the petitioner and the amount involved in each case and it will therefore be convenient if we set out the facts relating to the petitions together. The petitioner in the first petition was at all material times employed as a Material Examiner in the Loco Shop the petitioner in the second petition was employed as a Fitter in the Electrical Workshop and the petitioner in the third petition was employed as a Fitter in the 8. M. Shop of the Western Railway Administration at Dohad. In respect of an incident which took place on 29th March 1955 the petitioners were prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dohad for offences under secs. 147 332 342 and 427 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution resulted in the conviction of the petitioners for those offences by the learned Magistrate. On the strength of the conviction so recorded against them the petitioners were dismissed from service without holding a departmental inquiry by three separate orders dated 22nd March 1956 The petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court Panchmahals at Godhra and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioners. The State carried the matter further in revision to the High Court but the high Court by an order dated 1st March 1957 rejected the revision application of the State and confirmed the acquittal of the petitioners. In view of this order passed by the High Court the General Manager of the Western Railway Administration by an order dated 4th January 1958 reinstated the petitioners in service and in regard to the intervening period between the date of dismissal and the date of rejoining service directed that that period shall be treated as leave with pay to the extent due and the balance as leave without pay. This last direction was given by the General Manager in exercise of his powers under Rule 2044 of the Rules framed by the Government of India Ministry of Railways and published in Indian Railway Establishment code. There was some dispute between the parties as to which Rule 2044 was in force at the time when this order was made by the General Manager the 1951 edition of the Indian Railway Establishment Code set out Rule 2044 in one form while the 1958 edition of that Code set out Rule 2044 in a revised form. According to the petitioners there was nothing to show when the revised Rule 2044 came into force and the validity of the order made by the General Manager was therefore required to be judged by reference to the old rule while the respondents contended that it was the revised rule which was in force at the relevant time and that governed the validity of the order of the General Manager. We shall advert to this controversy a little later when we deal with the arguments urged on behalf of the parties though we may point out at this stage that in the view we are taking of the main question of construction it would be unnecessary to decide that controversy. Proceeding further with the narration of facts following upon the order of the General Manager and in compliance with it the Works Manager by a separate letter dated 6th January 1958 intimated to each of the petitioners in the first two petitions that he was reinstated in service and should therefore join duty immediately and that the intervening period between the date of dismissal and the date of actual rejoining of service would be treated as leave with pay to the extent due and the balance as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document