ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) These three writ petitions are heard and disposed of together, as they raise common questions of law. Heard the petition in the revised list. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present.
(2.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition, challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 dated July 8, 1983. The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as under: That admittedly the contesting respondent was employee of the petitioner corporation and he has been punished by the order dated November 29, 1980 by which punishment has been imposed for realisation of a sum of Rs. 2977.40 from the contesting respondent in instalments. The contesting respondent preferred a claim petition before the prescribed authority under the provision of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 that the amount sought to be recovered in instalments pursuant to the impugned order dated November 29, 1980 is illegal deduction which cannot be done and, therefore, a suitable direction be issued by the prescribed authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, not to recover the aforesaid amount. The petitioner employer has raised objection that the Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the contesting workman because it is admitted case of the petitioner that the amount is deducted pursuant to the order dated November 29, 1980. The prescribed authority rejected the objection raised by the employer and directed by order dated November 14, 1982 that the amount sought to be recovered, amounts to deduction in wages which is unauthorised and directed not to recover the aforesaid amount. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred appeal which was barred by 18 days and, therefore, an objection was raised, that it should be dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioner was directed to explain the delay by filing an affidavit which has been complied with. The appellate authority rejected the explanation submitted by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal as time barred.
(3.) I have gone through the order of the appellate authority which is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. The delay has been sufficiently explained in filing the appeal. Thus the order of the appellate authority deserves to be quashed. Since the matter is very old and interest of justice demands that at this state the matter should not be remanded back to the appellate authority, particularly in view of the admitted fact that the deductions are made pursuant to the order of the prescribed authority which cannot be justified under law.;