Mithan, J. - (1.) These two connected civil revisions filed by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, and others relate to a matter under the Payment of Wages Act. An application by the opposite party had been filed under Section 15 of the Payment oi Wages Act. The authority passed an order directing the other side, the petitioners, to pay wages of the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 92/-per mensem as salary plus Rs. 50/- as dearness allowance from 14th May 1955 to 4th March 1959. The facts of the case briefly stated are :
(2.) The plaintiff-opposite party was an employee of the Northern Railway and was working as General Assistant (Goods) to the Station Master Bharthana at the time of his suspension. He was suspended from his post on 19th May 1954 and was later of removed from service on 14th May 1935 by an order of the Additional Commercial Superintendent dated 9th of May 1955. The opposite party filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court and that Court by an order dated 8th October 1958 accepted his petition with costs and set aside the order of dismissal passed against him. Thereafter, by means of a formal order passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer the order of removal of the opposite party was cancelled and he was asked to report at Naini station where he took over charge on 5th March 1959. This order did not say anything about the re-instatement of the opposite party nor anything regarding the pay and the allowances to be paid to him nor how the period shall be treated. Another order was communicated to the opposite party through the Station Master in July 1959 stating that the period from 19th May 1954 to 4th March 1959 has been regularised as leave due and arrangement is being made for payment of his dues. There is again nothing in this order about reinstatement. The opposite party was not paid the salary and allowances totalling about Ms. 8,000/-. Under the Payment of Wages Act, the authority issued the direction stated earlier, Against that order two appeals were filed, one by the Divisional Superintendent and the other by the opposite party. The appeal of the Divisional Superintendent was dismissed while that of the opposite party was allowed. It is against this order that the present two revisions have been filed. It may also be stated that after the orders passed in appeal the railway offered the employee about Rs. 108/- which he accepted under protest.
(3.) The main contention of Sri D. Sanyal, learned counsel for the present petitioners, is that the case of the opposite party was governed by Para 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, and such salary and allowances which were considered admissible to the opposite party have already been allowed. Consequently the order, which has been passed by the authority under Para 2044, could not be questioned by means of an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. His submission is that the jurisdiction of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is limited by Section 7 (2) (h) of the Payment of Wages Act and as this question was beyond the jurisdiction of that authority no direction could be issued by it. For this purpose the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities: Union of India v. Kundan Lal, (S) AIR 1957 All 363. This very case came up in Special Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and the decision is reported in Kundan Lal v. Union of India, 1961 All LJ 8 : (AIR 1961 All 567). He has further relied upon the case of General Manager Northern Railway v. Swarup Rai, AIR 1959 Raj 55. For the scope of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act he has relied upon the authority of Sri Ambika Mills Co. Ltd. v. S. B. Bhatt, AIR 1961 SC 970.;