V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 3688 to 3703 of 1992 as common question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions.
(2.) IN all these writ petitions petitioners are the employees of the Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur. The General Manager, vide separate orders passed in the case of each of the petitioners stopped the annual increment (s) with cumulative effect. Order passed in all the cases was similarly worded. These orders stopping annual increments with cumulative effect were challenged by the petitioners; in applications Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur that the orders were not passed for good and sufficient cause. The applications were opposed by the General Manager. Parties led their evidence and on consideration of the evidence, the orders were set aside as the Senior Sub Judge was of the view that the orders were non-speaking and sketchy. Against these orders, appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who vide orders dated 28. 8. 1986 dismissed the appeal with costs. Since the department did not refund the amount, execution applications were filed before the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur with a prayer that the amount he recovered by sale of the property of the respondent. Application were contested on the ground that the senior Sub Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the applications as the Senior Sub Judges were appointed authorities under the Act only with effect from 5,1. 1988. Before the Senior Sub Judge, notifications No. 7781-1-37-8/20 (Industries and Labour Department) dated 2. 2. 1937 and No. 905-6-2535 dated 18. 2. 1924 were produced. These notifications are reproduced hereunder for ready reference- Notification No. 7781-1-37-8/20 (Industries and Labour Department) dated 2. 2. 1937:- "in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the Governor in council is pleased to appoint the Commissioners for workmen compensation in the Punjab, Notified in Punjab Govt. Notification No. 905-6-2536 dated 18th February as the authority to hear and decide within their Jurisdiction all claims arising out of deduction from the wages or delay in payment of wages, of the persons employed or paid within their jurisdiction. " Notification No. 905-6-2535 dated 18. 2. 1924: "in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the workmen's compensation Act, 1923 read with Section 22 of the General Clauses, 1897 the Governor in Council is pleased to appoint for each of the districts of Ambala, Ferozepur, Lahore, Amritsar, Rawalpindi, Lyallpur and Multan the Senior Sub Judge, and for each of the remaining districts of Punjab, the District Magistrates to be the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation under the said Act. " On the basis of these two notifications, it was submitted before the Senior Sub Judge that all the senior Sub Judges continue to exercise such power as an authority under the Act by virtue of these notifications and thus order passed by the Senior Sub Judge was not nullity as contended by the respondent. On consideration of these notifications, the Senior Sub Judge concluded that the order was passed by the Senior Sub Judge while he was not conferred with the power under the Act and as such the application for execution are not maintainable. The execution applications thus were dismissed. The order dismissing the execution applications is being impugned in these civil revisions.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that on the date the order was passed, the Senior Sub Judge was competent to pass the order as authority under the Act. He further contended that assuming for the sake of argument that the Senior Sub Judge was not conferred with the power of Authority under the Act, even then applying the de facto doctrine, the orders are valid and binding as if they were the acts of the Officer de jure. In support of his submission, he relied upon the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of A. P. , A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1473.;