JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northen Rly. Jodhpur, against an order of the Payment of Wages Authority issuing a direction to him under sec. 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was partially confirmed on appeal by the District Judge, Jodhpur.

2. The claim was preferred by the Central Regional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, on behalf of Shri Motilal Kachhwaha, confidential stenographer to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur Division, on the allegation that deductions amounting to Rs. 460/- which were unauthorised by the Act had been made from his salary. A sum of Rs. 4500/- was claimed by way of compensation.

3. The deductions were made from 1st March, 1961. The present claim was filed on 12-10-62, much beyond the period of six months prescribed under sec. 15(2) for preferring such claims. The delay was condoned by the Payment of Wages Authority under the second proviso to sec. 15(2).

4. The claim was resisted by the Divisional Personnel Officer on the ground that the deductions were made under the order of competent authority and that the deductions were justified. The Payment of Wages Authority framed the following issues—

(1) Whether the application for the period prior to six months from the date of its filing is within time. (on applicant)

(2) Whether the claim of the applicant is not within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act. (on non-Applicant)

(3) Whether the applicant was entitled to get Rs. 280/- p. m. as confidential stenographer. (on applicant)

(4) Whether there were illegal deductions of Rs. 30/- per month from the applicants wages from 1-3-61 to 31-5-62 amounting to Rs. 450/-. (on applicant).

(5) If not, whether he was correctly fixed in terms of his fixation. (on non-applicant)

A date was fixed for recording the evidence of the parties in the case. Before that date. The applicant served a number of interrogatories on the non-applicant who submitted a reply to them. The applicant thereafter moved an application on 2-9-63 praying that either the case be decided under order 12, rule 6 C. P. C. or in the alternative the burden of proof of issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 may be shifted to the non-applicant.

5. This application was opposed on behalf of the D.P.O. and a date was fixed for hearing arguments on it. The Authority heard arguments on this application but instead of passing orders on it decided the whole case without giving an opportunity to the non-applicant to adduce evidence or to address arguments on the whole. This was a material irregularity. The appellate court however failed to attach due weight to it on account of the fact that it failed to comprehend the true nature of the defence put forward on behalf of the D.P.O.

6. I accordingly set aside the order of the appellate court and remand the case to the Authority for decision in accordance with law.

7. Before parting with the case I would like to explain the defence of the D. P.O. which both the courts below have failed to understand. Shri Motilal was fixed in the grade of Rs. 80-220 and was drawing Rs. 220/- on 1-4-60 when he was fixed in the grade of Rs. 200-10-300 retrospectively from 1-4-56. His salary on 1-4-56 in this grade was fixed at Rs. 230/. On 1-4-60 his salary in this grade came to Rs.270/-. This fixation was verified by the then Divisional Accounts Officer and Shri Motilal drew the salary in accordance with this fixation for 15 months when an objection was raised by the then Divisional Accounts Officer that the fixation was wrong. He was of the opinion that the salary of Shri Motilal should have been fixed at Rs. 200/-on 1-4-56. In other words he was of the opinion that Shri Motilal had drawn Rs.30/-per month in excess all along. The future salary bills of Shri Motilal were prepared in accordance with the opinion of the Divisional Accounts Officer, under rules 1702 and 1704 of the Indian Railway General Code, Vol. I. These rules run as foll

Click Here to Read the rest of this document