Wanchoo, C.J.—These are two connected revisions arising out of proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act (herein-after called the Act). They were laid before a learned Single Judge of this Court and he has referred them to a Division Bench because of the far reaching importance of the points of law arising in then.

2. Before we deal with the points of law raised at the bar, we should like to set down briefly the facts. One Swaroopraj (Civil Revision No. 90) was an employee of the Northern Railway and was posted as Assist. Station Master at Railway Station Mundwa. He was suspended on charges of corruption on the 29th of January 1953. Later he was prosecuted in court and was acquitted by the Special Judge on the 30th of April, 1955. Thereafter he was reinstated on the 9th of May, 1955. He claimed the full salary for the period from the 22th of January 1953 to 9th of May 1955 and also other benefits. This claim was rejected by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Jodhpur on the ground that Swaroopraj had not been honourably acquitted. Thereupon he made an application under sec. 15 of the Act before the authority appointed to hear such applications. The application was opposed on behalf of the railway. The Authority, however, allowed the application in part and ordered that a sum of Rs. 1605/- be paid to Swaroopraj as wages. There was then an appeal by the railway to the District Judge which failed. Hence the revision.

3. The facts of the other case (Civil Revision No. 91) are similar. This case relates to Daulal who was a peon in the Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur. The charge against him was that he was caught stealing some paper belonging to the railway on the 4th of October 1951. He was thereupon prosecuted under sec 381 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class. On appeal, however, he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge on the 3rd of June, 1955. After his acquittal, he was reinstated with effect from the 13th of February, 1956 by the Works Manager. That Officer, however, ordered that the period of suspension would not be treated as spent on duty, with the result that Daulal was only allowed suspension allowance for the whole period up to the 13th of February 1956. He, therefore, made an application under sec. 15 of the Act This application was opposed by the Railway, but the Authority under the Act allowed it in part and ordered a sum of Rs. 1072/- to be paid to Daulal. There was an appeal to the District Judge, which failed Consequently, this revision.

4. It will be seen from a perusal of these facts that the points involved in the two revisions are exactly the same. The contention of the railway before the Authority under the Act was that it had no jurisdiction to hear these applications. The case was put before the Authority in this manner. It was said that, in the first place, as the two employee had been suspended and had been paid wages for the suspension period in accordance with rule 2043 of the Railway Establishment Code, there was no question of any deduction from their wages which could be agitated before the Authority. In the alternative, it was urged that even if it be held that there was deduction in wages in these circumstances, the Authority had no jurisdiction to pass any orders on these applications as orders had been passed in the two cases under rule 2044 and those orders were not open to review by the Authority under the Act.

5. It was, on the other hands, contended on behalf of Swaroopraj and Daulal that rule 2044 did not apply to their cases and that it was sec. 3 of appendix XXXI which applied. It was also urged that in view of the provisions contained in the said section, the Divisional Personnel Officer or the Works Manager had no option but to allow full wages to Swaroopraj and Daulal after their acquittal by the court. It was also urged that in the case of Swaroopraj, the Divisional Personnel Officer did not pass and order as to his wages on the 9th of May 1955 when t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document