- (1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1043 of 1987, 1265 of 1987 and 1874 of 1987 as common question of facts and law are involved. However, the facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 1043 of 1987.
(2.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for setting aside order dated 20.8.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, while dismissing appeal of the petitioner Department by upholding the order dated 2.6.1986, passed by the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. According to the order dated 2.6.1986, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the order imposing punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, passed by the petitioner Department, dated 13.9.1978 and 9.11.1981 were held to be illegal as those orders were non-speaking and cryptic. The order of the Authority has been upheld on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, by observing as under :- "9. I have gone through the orders dated 13.9.1978 and 9.11.1981 contained in the enquiry files produced on the record of this case. The perusal of the same would show that these orders do not show as to what were the allegations against the applicant, what was his reply to the same and on what grounds the punishing Authority arrived at a conclusion that the reply submitted by the applicant to the show cause notices, was not satisfactory. In the absence of this material, these orders cannot be termed as speaking ones. To my mind the learned Authority was right to place its reliance on the Authority reported as 1968 SLR 792 Short Note and the learned Govt. pleader has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary. He also could not show me as to how the application is barred by limitation qua such an order which has no existence in the eye of law. The findings of the learned Authority on issue No. 1, are kept intact."
(3.) Mr. Satish Bhanot, learned State counsel has argued that the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders passed by the punishing authority in pursuance to initiation of either disciplinary proceedings or show cause notice. According to the learned counsel, such orders could be challenged before the Civil Court alone or the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5950 of 1994, decided on 1.10.1997 (State of Punjab and others v. Baldev Singh), holding that the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the employee concerned and such orders cannot be set aside by the Authority.;