TYAGI, J.—This petition has been filed by the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter called the Society) under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the correctness of the order dated 2nd May, 1967, passed by the Authority set up under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:

Narendra Kumar Goel, respondent No. 2 was working as clerk in the petitioner society. On 29th of July, 1964, the managing committee of the society by its resolution No. 6 created certain additional temporary posts of senior grade styled as "Sub-heads". The grade of this senior post was Rs. 160-250. The respondent No. 2, who was drawing a salary in the junior scale of Rs. 110/200, was appointed as a sub-head. After some time, the managing committee reviewed the situation and realised that it had committed an error in creating the posts of subheads in the senior grade and, therefore, by adopting another resolution on 16th December, 1964, it abolished the posts of sub-heads with effect from 17th December, 1964 and reverted the respondent No. 3 to his substantive post of a clerk in the grade of Rs. 110/200. It so appears that a representation was made by the respondent No. 2 to the managing committee challenging the order of his reversion, but his representation did not bear any fruit. The respondent No. 2, therefore, preferred to file an application before the Authority (respondent No. 1) appointed under the Act, claiming that the society has illegally deducted his wages to the extent of Rs 303,06 pertaining to the period commencing from 17th December, 1964 to 30th November, 1965.

3. The petitioner society contested the claim of the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that it is not a case of deduction of wages and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondent No. 2.

4. The Authority under the Act examined witnesses on behalf of the parties and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it held that since the respondent No. 2, according to the distribution of work among the clerks, continued to do the same work which he was doing as a sub head before the abolition of that post and discharged the higher responsibilities, he was entitled to draw the salary of the sub-head and in this view of the matter passed the impugned order directing the society to pay to the respondent No. 2 salary in the senior scale of sub head from 25th February, 1965 to 30th November, 1965. It may be mentioned here that the claim of the respondent No. 2 for higher salary before 25th of February, 1965 had become time-barred under the Act.

5. The petitioner society has challenged the impugned order of the authority under the Act on various grounds but learned counsel for the petitioner has directed his argument mainly on this ground that the authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to decide this matter as it was not a case of deduction of wages but it was really a dispute about the reduction in rank of the respondent No. 2 which was not within the jurisdiction of the authority.

6. No reply has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Mridul, appearing on behalf of respondent No 2, however, orally argued the case of the respondent and submitted that the definition of wages as given in sec. 2{vi) of the Act is so wide that it covers the respondent No. 2s case as placed by him before the authority.

7. In order to determine the controversy, it will be necessary to examine the definition of wages as given in clause (vi) of sec. 3 of the Act minutely. Wages, according to this definition, means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment. This definition also includes other payments to the employee but as that portion o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document