UNION OF INDIA Vs. S P NATARAJA SASTRIGAL
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
Click here to view full judgement.
Subba Rao, J. -
(1.) This is an application for issuing a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras.
(2.) The respondents, S.P. Nataraja Sastrigal and S. Padmanabha Rao, were assistant Masters in the South Indian Railway each in charge of Northern area School and Eastern area school respectively, of the Golden Rock colony. They were allowed to draw a duty allowance of Rs. 2 each per mensem. The appointments were made on 5-7-1941. Subsequently their designation was changed to that of head masters. In the year 1950, the Central Pay Commission sanctioned a revised scale 08 pay and allowance to the head masters which was to he given retrospective effect from January 1947. In implementation of the above, the duty allowance of the head masters was raised to Rs. 15 per month. After the revision of the scales of pay, C.S. Krishnamurthy Aiyar and M.G. Venkatarama Aiyar in whose places the respondents were appointed, were Union of India (UOI), owning the South Indian Railway by the General Manager vs. S... Page 1 of 4 posted as head masters of the said two elementary' schools. The respondents were reverted to their posts as assistant masters and posted to work In the High Schools and Elementary Schools respectively. As they were reverted to their original posts they were ordered not to draw the special pay of Rs. 15 per mensem. Pursuant to that order their wages were reduced by Rs. 15 per mensem. There was also a proportionate reduction In their dearness allowance by another sum of Rs. 5. They applied by a group application under Section 15(2) and Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for payment of their delayed wages and also for compensation. They estimated their relief in a sum of Rs. 310-10-8. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowed their claims. The Union of India has filed the present application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash that order of the Commissioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, had no jurisdiction to question the validity of any reversion or transfer made by the administration of any of their employees but that his jurisdiction was confined to direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, within the prescribed limit only on the basis of his existing appointment. But learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection and contends that the writ would not issue as the petitioners have an effective remedy by way of an appeal to the Court of Small Causes against the order of the Commissioner and that they had not preferred the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.