L.N.CHHANGANI, J. - (1.) THESE two revision applications are directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ajmer, and arise out of a petition filed by Pahilaj Rai petitioner in S.B. Civil Revision No. 185/71 (Who shall hereinafter be called the 'petitioner') under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (Act No. IV of 1936) hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Works Manager (Carriage) now as Dy. C.M.E. (C&W;) Western Railway, Aimer (hereinafter referred to as the 'opposite party'). They shall be disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Head Clerk in Carriage and Works No. 26 Department, Western Railway, Ajmer. He was served with a charge sheet dated 12/15 November, 1955 charging him with an attempt to take away from the shop a pint of varnish, and after an inquiry, he was removed from service with effect from 9/10/56 On 9/4/62 the petitioner filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Ajmer District, Ajmer, for a declaration that the order of his removal from service was wrong, illegal and inoperative and that he continued in service and was entitled to all wages, allowances and other service benefits. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 15/3/66 and a decree in the following terms was passed in favour of the petitioner: The order of removal of the plaintiff from the service dated 19/10/56 is declared illegal and inoperative. The plaintiff continues in the service of the defendant. After obtaining a decree the applicant wrote to the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay and endorsed a copy to the opposite party, requesting them to take him back on duty and to pay all his claims but there was no response. On 16/8/66 the petitioner moved an application under Section 15 of the Act for a direction requiring the opposite party to pay Rs. 33,776.0 The petition was opposed on the following grounds - (1) That the petitioner ceased to remain a railway employee after 26 -4 -62 and that the relations of master and servant came to an end. (2) The claim for the period upto the date of the institution of the suit is barred by the principle of Order 2 Rule 2, Civil P.C. (3) That the application for arrears of salary having been filed after more than a year of the accrual of the salary, it was barred by limitation. After recording evidence of the parties, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, issued direction for the payment to the petitioner of an amount of Rs. 33,776,02. The Authority did not allow the petitioner's claim for compensation. The opposite party filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ajmer. The District Judge, Ajmer held that the claim for arrears of salary upto the date of the suit was barred by limitation and he did not consider it proper to entertain the claim in the absence of a sufficient cause. He also held that the claim for arrears of salary for this period was also barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, Civil P.C. In other respects, he agreed with the decision of the Authority. He partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount payable by the opposite party to Rs. 16,499.77.
(3.) BOTH the petitioner and the opposite -party have filed revisions.;