The starting point of limitation for a claim under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act is the date on which deduction from wages was made or the date on which payment of wages was due.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an appellate order passed by the learned Additional district Judge, Moradabad under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) SHEO Prasad petitioner was at one time a Railway employee. He was suspended on 14-3-48. An order for his removal was passed on 21-6-48, He instituted a civil suit for a declaration that his removal was wrongful. The civil court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration on 21-9-55. The petitioner filed a claim before the City Magistrate, Moradabad on 1-3-56, claiming a sum of Rs. 12,576/11/, as arrears of his wages. This claim was resisted by the Railway administration. The City Magistrate returned the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. The same application was later presented before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, bilari. He passed an order on 14-6-58 allowing the petitioners claim in part.

( 3 ) THE Union of India filed an appeal against the Claims Commissioners decision, dated 14-6-58. The appeal came up for disposal before the learned Additional District Judge, moradabad. He held that the claim presented by Sheo Prasad was barred by time. The appeal was, therefore, allowed; and the Claims Commissioners order was set aside. The present writ petition by Sheo Prasad is directed against the appellate order, dated 26-10-1959.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was suspended and removed in the year 1948. In 1955, he succeeded in obtaining a declaration that the removal was wrongful. The first question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner made, his claim within, time. Claims are made under section 15 of the Act. The first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 deals with limitation. That proviso runs thus :

"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 :"

The second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 lays down that delay in presenting a claim may be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, parties are agreed that the period of limitation, for making such a claim is six months. But they are not agreed about the starting point of limitation. According to the petitioner, the decision by the civil court was the starting point for limitation. According to the opposite party, the date of suspension was the starting point for limitation.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional District Judge relied upon noor Ali v. Kanpur Omnibus Service Ltd. , air 1955 All 707. In that case it was held by Mehrotra, J, that, in a suit for recovery of wages for period of suspension, limitation starts from the date of suspension, and not from the date of reinstatement. In that case the question of limitation arose in a Small Cause suit. In the present case the question, of limitation has arises in a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, However, the decision of this Court in Noor Alis Case, AIR 1955 All 707 is of some help in deciding the question 6f limitation in the present ease also.

( 6 ) IT will be seen that, under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the starting point of limitation is the date on which deduction from wages was made or the date on which payment of wages was due. Now if the petitioner was suspended and subsequently removed in the year 1948, it is obvious that wages were in fact clue in the year 1948. It may be that in view of the order of removal, a claim for compensation or wages was not likely to succeed at that stage. But it is not correct to say that, wages were not due in 1948 on the footing that the removal was wrongful. The petitioner was due to retire in the ordinary course on 1-4-1951. There, was, therefore, no question of any wages falling due after 1951. It is impossible to accept the petitioners contention that, wages were due from 1955. I agree with the learned additional Dis