D.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1. K.M. Rami, was initially appointed as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') on a temporary basis, on a cons dilated salary of Rs. 130/ per menses by the letter of appointment dated 29 -11 -58/23 -12 -58. The respondent No. 1 joined service with effect from December 26, 1958. The said respondent appeared at a test held by the Corporation for the purpose of recruiting probationary staff and was declared successful with the result that his temporary service was converted into probationary one with effect from September 28, 1959 and he was placed in the grade of Rs. 75,5,90 8 136 EB 160 10 220 EB 10 -240 -15 270. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 was confirmed as an Assistant in the aforesaid grade with effect from June 26, 1959 He was given a grade increment on 1 -1 -60 and thereafter, on, the first of January of the two following years However, in February 1962, it was discovered that the respondent No. 1 was nor entitled to obtain a grade increment with effect from 1.1.60, but that he could receive the first increment in the above mentioned grade only with effect from July 1, 1960, after completion of 12 months' service in the grade concerned The Corporation thereupon deducted the amount which was thus erroneously and to the respondent No. 1 Mr. Rami made a representation to the Zonal Manager after a lapse of five years on June 14. 1967 objecting to the aforesaid deduction which was ordered to be made in February 1962. As the said representation was rejected, he submitted an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court on July 16, 1968 However, the Central Labour Court, by its order dated April 30, 1969 disagreed with the contention of respondent No. 1 and held that his temporary service was converted into a probationary one only on his being declared successful in 'he requisite test. The application of respondent No. 1 was, therefore, rejected as not maintainable because it was not considered to be an existing right of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Payment of Wages Authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called "the Act") which, by its order dated August 19, 1970, disallowed the claim for the period from 1.1.60 to October 3, 1968 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had slumbered over his rights. However, the respondent No. 1 was directed to file a fresh claim for the period beginning from October 4, 1968. The respondent No. 1 then filed a fresh claim on September 21, 1970 and claimed a sum of Rs. 84.12 p. on account of unauthorised deduction alleged to have been made during the period from October 4, 1963 to October 3, 1969. The claim was resisted on behalf of the Corporation and it was submitted in reply that no unlawful d dictions were made from the emoluments of the respondent No. 1 by the Corporation. The Payment of Wages Authority Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") decided the matter by is order dated Much 4, 1671. It was held by the Authority that in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 58(1)(iii) of the Staff Regulations 1956 of the Corporation, the employee could claim an increment only after the Completion of one year of service in the grade concerted and that as the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the time -scale with effect from June 26, 1959, he completed one year of service in that grade on June 26, 1960 and consequently, he could be allowed the annual grade increment only with effect from July 1, 1960 However, by a curious process of reasoning, which it is difficult to understand, the Authority further went on to hold that as case of the respondent regarding pay fixation allowing him an annual grade increment with effect from January 1, 1960 had already been decided and closed, the same could not have been reopened on the basis of a circular issued by the Corporation on June 13, 1980. Taking the view that the said circular did not have any retrospective effect, the Authority held that the Corporation was not entitled to refix the wages of the respondent No. 1, and consequently, make deductions from such wages. He, therefore, passed an order for the refund of Rs. 84.12 to the respondent No. 1 in accordance with his reduced claim statement along with Rs. 30/ - as compensation.
(3.) THE Corporation has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid order passed by the Authority dated March 4, 1971.;