K.N. SINGH, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against an order of the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur, dated 23-10-1971 under the Payment of Wages Act, holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute before it.
(2.) Jamait Ram Khatnani, respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the North Eastern Railway. He was officiating on the post of Assistant Personnel Inspector and posted at Katihar. By an order dated March 7, 1960, he was reverted to his substantive post of clerk and thereafter he was transferred to Fatehgarh. He challenged the order of reversion in Writ Petition before this Court. The petition was allowed and the order of reversion was quashed. In special appeal the judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by an order of this Court dated 7-11-1968. Meanwhile the petitioner did not join his office at Fatehgarh, instead he participated in the railway strike and in that connection he was arrested and placed under suspension. While under suspension he requested the District Engineer, Fatehgarh, for payment of his suspension allowance. The request was refused, but subsequently after the order of the reversion was quashed by this Court the railway authorities cancelled the reversion order dated November 12, 1969, as well as the transfer order dated November, 17/18, 1969, and sanctioned him leave for the period between 18-3-1960 to 11-7-1960 and directed that the payment of the salary be made to him. In pursuance of that order the respondent drew, his salary from the District Engineer ; Fatehgarh, in the first week of April, 1960. Later on he filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur, for the payment of his wages for the period between 12-7-1960 to 31-3-1965. There is some dispute about the period for which the respondent is claiming wages, but it is not necessary to decide that question in the present proceedings. Suffice it to say that the respondent No. 1 made application for the payment of wages before the Prescribed Authority at Gorakhpur. The General Manager, N.E.Railway and other Railway authorities who were respondents to the application questioned the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur to entertain the respondent's application. According to them the applicant had never been posted at Gorakhpur nor he was paid his salary at Gorakhpur, hence the Prescribed authority, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
(3.) The Prescribed authority by the impugned order dated 23-10-1971 held that since the respondent No. 1 was arrested at Gorakhpur, served with a charge-sheet and was paid salary at Gorakhpur, he was in employment at Gorakhpur during the relevant period therefore it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Aggrieved the General Manager and other railway authorities of the North Eastern Railway have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order of the Prescribed Authority.;