Chandra Reddy, C.J.-

The question that requires an answer in this revision petition is whether the Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to award wages for the period during which the workman was suspended pending enquiry into the charges. The petitioner was employed by the respondent as a cashier on a monthly salary of Rs. 100 in addition to free boarding, etc. By an order dated 1st March, 1961, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 3rd March, 1961, pending enquiry into certain charges against him, the details of which need not be set out here. But as no enquiry was started, the petitioner presented an application before the Payment of Wages Authority under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,680 as representing his wages up to that date. The Payment of Wages Authority, while rejecting the petitioner’s claim for some months on the ground of limitation, directed the respondent to. pay the petitioner Rs. 1,120 at Rs. 160 per month for seven months as wages and cost of free food.

The respondent carried an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes contending that it was not within the powers of the Payment of Wages Authority as the claim does not fall within the ambit of section 15 of the Act. This submission found favour with the Appellate Tribunal with the result that the order of the Payment of Wages Authority was reversed and the application of the petitioner dismissed. In his opinion the Payment of Wages Authority could not decide as to the validity of the suspension of the petitioner by the respondent. It is this judgment of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes that is the subject-matter of this revision case.

The point taken by Sri Ramaswami in this revision case is that the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that section 15 (2) of the Act is attracted to all cases where the wages are withheld for some reason or other and is not confined to cases of withholding of wages for the actual work done by the employee. We are disposed to accede to this proposition. Before we address ourselves to this question it is convenient to look at the terms of section 15. The section rules: —

“ (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a Stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages......................

(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3):

Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on Which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be.

* * * * *”

We are not concerned with the other provisions of section 15. We may also mention here that some changes have been introduced into the section but it is unnecessary for the purpose of this enquiry to refer to them as our decisions turns upon section 15 (1) as it stood at the time of the presentation of the application.

Could it be posited that the payment of wages has been delayed as contemplated by sub-section (2) ? In our opinion the non-payment of wages for a number of months on the ground of suspension would amount to delaying payment of wages. It is true there is some support for the view taken by the Chief Judge of the Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document