- (1.) THIS la a revision under Section 44 of the Punjab Courts Act and under Article 227 of the constitution of India preferred by the Union of India from the decision dated 12 March 1958 of sri Om Prakash Sarma, Senior Subordinate Judge, acting as the authority under Payment of wages Act. Triloki Nath Bhasin, respondent, preferred a claim under Section 5 (2) of the payment of Wages Act for the payment of Rs. 6-10-0 on account of an alleged unauthorized deduction by the railway department. He was an old employee of the Northern Railway and retired from service on 28 May 1957. A sum of Rs. 6-10-0 appears to have been deducted from his salary for the month of January 1957 on account of law charges, i. e. , costs of a suit awarded against him. His contention has been that the deduction la unauthorized and could not have been legally effected from his wages. He has, however, claimed damages for mental worries as well.
(2.) THIS claim was opposed and it was contended inter alia that the claim did not fall within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act. It was also contended that the applicant having retired, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and that a joint application against the several defendants was not competent; the deduction in question was justified being on account of costs of a law suit awarded against the petitioner which, according to the defendants, could be legally deducted from the salary due to the applicant. Only one issue was framed, viz. , "whether the deduction in question is valid" and the authority came to the conclusion that the law charges in question could be legally deducted under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge flame to the conclusion that the petitioner's net emoluments at the time of deduction being less than Rs. 200, his claim was within the scope of the Payment of Wages Act. It has also been observed that though one application against all the defendants might not be maintainable, a direction could without doubt be given to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Ferozepore, who is the paymaster under the Act.
(3.) ON revision, I was inclined not to interfere in this case in view of the petty amount involved and the decision being substantially just. Sri Saluja has, however, contended that the Union of india is interested in having the question of law decided because a number of other similar oases are pending before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. I agreed to go into merits on the express condition that the decision even if goes in favour of the petitioner would not adversely affect the order passed in favour of Triloki Nath Bhasin in the instant case.;