Gajendragadkar, C.J. - (1.) AN application made by the Respondent, Pushkar Datt Sharma, against the Appellant Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad, and D.P.O. Northern Railway, Allahabad Under Section 15(2) and (3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. 4 of 1936) (hereinafter called 'the Act') has been allowed by the Authority appointed under the Act, and the Appellant has been ordered to pay to the Respondent Rs. 22,829 -207 within a month from the date of the order. After the application was made, the Respondent moved the Authority to condone the delay made by him in presenting the said application and since the Authority was satisfied that the Respondent had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period prescribed by Section 15(2), the delay was condoned and his application was entertained and allowed on the merits.
(2.) AGAINST this decision, the Appellant went in appeal before the I Additional District Judge at Allahabad. The main point which was urged before the Appellate Court was that the Authority was not justified in condoning the delay made by the Respondent in moving it under Section 15 of the Act. The Appellate Court rejected this contention, with the result that the order passed by the Authority was confirmed. The Appellant then moved the Allahabad High Court by a revision application and raised the same contention. The High Court took the view that there was no justification for interfering with the decision of the Authority that a case had been made out to its satisfaction for condoning the delay, and so, the revision application filed by the Appellant was dismissed. It is this order which is challenged before us by the learned Attorney -General on behalf of the Appellant by special leave granted by this Court on the 6th October, 1964. Section 15 of the Act deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages, and it provides, inter alia, that a claim which an employee wants to make under its provisions, 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 application in question was made on the 7th July, 1962, and by his application the Respondent claimed from the Appellant past wages due to him between December 24, 1947 and the 6th July, 1962. The Respondent was dismissed on December 23, 1947, and his case before the Authority was that his dismissal had been pronounced by the High Court to be illegal and void on the 9th January, 1962 and that gave rise to his claim for wages over the period from the date of his dismissal until the date of his application. That is how the preliminary question which the Authority had to consider was whether the Respondent had made out a case for condoning the delay made by him in making the present application beyond six months prescribed by the first proviso to Section 15(2). The second proviso to the said section authorises the Authority to entertain the application even though it may be made beyond the prescribed period of limitation, provided the Authority is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period; and as we have already mentioned the Authority was satisfied and delay was condoned by it.
(3.) IT is necessary at this stage to mention a few facts which gave rise to the Respondent's claim. The Respondent was dismissed on December 23, 1947, and he challenged the validity and the legality of his dismissal by a civil suit. His suit was decreed on March 31, 1951, as a result of which it was declared that his dismissal was illegal. On appeal by the Appellant, the said decree was set aside and the Respondent's suit was dismissed on August 14, 1952. The Respondent then went in second appeal to the Allahabad High Court and he succeeded, with the result that the decree passed by the trial Court in his favour was restored on January, 9, 1962. Against this decree, the Appellant preferred a Special Appeal before a Division Bench of the said High Court. This appeal was ultimately dismissed on September 16, 1964, and that has finally closed the dispute between the parties as to the invalidity of the Respondent's dismissal.;