Punjab-Haryana High Court
The General Manager, Punjab Roadways vs Gurdev Singh on 24 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2008)ILLJ231P&H, (2007)4PLR392
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The State of Punjab has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dated 25.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal of the petitioner-State against the judgment dated 18.9.1986 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed.
2. In this case, respondent Gurdev Singh, who was working as a Conductor with the respondent, filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Authority under the Act challenging certain orders of with-holding of his increments, being illegal and seeking direction to the petitioner-department to refund the wages, which have been illegally deducted under the said orders. In the application, it has been averred by the respondent that the said orders are not speaking orders.
3. The Authority partly allowed the said application while holding that the deductions made in pursuance of orders dated 10.4.1973, 4.9.1975 and 5.8.1975 are unauthoried deductions being not speaking orders and on the basis of such orders, no deduction from the salary of the respondent can be made. However, with regard to the deductions made in pursuance of the orders dated 6.10.1975 and 30.6.1983, it was held that the same are authorised deductions. The appeal filed against the said order has also been dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if a disciplinary action is taken against an employee, which culminated in order of punishment, may be minor punishment reducing the pay of the employee to the minimum stage of the time scale, in that situation the employee/workman can challenge the said order passed pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings before the competent authority or the Court, but he cannot challenge such order before the Authority under the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that the Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Baldev Singh , where in similar circumstances, the similar order passed by the Authority under the Act was set aside on the ground that the Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment reducing the pay. In my opinion, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision in facts as well as in law. Under the Act, if the delinquent employee is aggrieved against the order of punishment passed against him in the departmental disciplinary proceedings, he could have challenged those orders in appeal before the appropriate authority or in a civil suit or by filing Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he cannot challenge those orders before the Authority under the Act. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Act are without jurisdiction.
6. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 25.11.1986, passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar confirming the order dated 18.9.1986, passed by the Authority under the Act, is set aside.