MOHINI KAPUR, J. - (1.) THE common question which arises in all these revision petitions is whether the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') can deposit the arrears of Dearness Allowance (D. A.) admissible to its employees in the General Provident Fund (GPF) or some similar account and not pay in cash and would deposit in such G. P. F. or other account amount to deduction of wages under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wages Act' ).
(2.) THE petitioner Corporation has been constituted under the Ware Housing Corporation Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in which 50% shares belong to the State Government. It has its own staff and the service conditions of the staff are governed by regulations framed under Section 42 of the Act and are called Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (Staff) Regulations ) 974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations ). THE Act provides for the constitution of the Corporation and other bodies in order to carry its functions. Section 20 provides for the constitution of Board of Directors in which shall vest the general superintendence and management of the affairs of the Corporation. Section 23 (1) and (2) of the Act read as under:- "23 (1 ). A State Warehousing Corporation may appoint such Officers and other employees as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. " "23 (2 ). Every person employed by a State Warehousing Corporation under this Act shall be subject to such conditions of service and shall be entitled to such remuneration as may be determined by regulations made by the Corporation under this Act," Regulation 24 of the Regulations framed under Section 42 of the Act reads as under:- "24 Dearness and Compensatory Allowance Employees of the Corporation shall be entitled to dearness and compensatory allowance at the rates admissible to employees of the State Government from time to time. " The Government from time to time revised the dearness allowance payable to the employees of the State Government and such increased dearness allowance was made payable in cash from a date specified in the order by which the dearness allowance was sanctioned, but as regards the arrears of dearness allowance it was ordered that the same shall be credited to the provident fund account of each employee. The relevant documents in this connection are Annexures 1 and 2. Instalments of additional dearness allowance were sanctioned by the Government w. e. f. 1-8-1983, 1-10-1983 and 1-11-1983 by order dated 22nd July, 1984 and it was ordered that the arrear of dearness allowance payable upto 31-5-1984 shall be impounded and thereafter the D. A. shall be paid in cash. Annexure-l order passed by the Government says that all public sector undertakings, corporations, autonomous bodies etc. shall ensure that the amount of dearness allowance sanctioned to the employees with effect from the aforesaid date shall be recovered as arrears of the dearness allowance upto 31-5-1984 and credited to the provident fund account of the employees. The order Annexure-2 passed by the Government on 31st October, 1984 is in respect of the revised dearness allowance rates w. e. f 1-1-1984, 1-2-1984, 1-4-1984 and 1-6-1984 This order also directs the corporations etc. to recover the arrears of the dearness allowance and credit the same to the provident fund account of the employees* The respondent No. 2 applied before the Authority under the Wages Act under Section 15 (2) of the Wages Act and claimed that the arrears of the dearness allowance payable to him has been unlawfully deducted by the employer who should be directed to pay the same. Upon this the Corporation was heard and after considering the relevant law applicable in this context, the Authority under the Wages, Act, by order dated 30th Jan, 1985 directed the petitioner to pay the amount of arrears of dearness allowance payable to each employee, in cash, alongwith compensation Rs. 50/- and costs' Rs. 25/- each. This order of the Authority was challenged in an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, who after taking into consideration all the pleas that were advanced before him, dismissed the appeal on 25th April, 1986. Against this order the present revision has been preferred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions in order to show that the decision of the courts below is not proper. His contention is that the Annexures 1 and 2 are orders by which the rates of D. A. stood revised with the stipulation that the D. A. would be payable in cash only after a specified date subsequent to the issue of the orders and the calculation of amount prior to that be deposited in the fund. According to him this being a composite order has to be made applicable in all parts and different provisions cannot be bifurcated so as to make it applicable in parts. It is argued that the amount which has been calculated and deposited in the G. F. R. cannot be said to be a deduction from the wages because the amount has been credited in the account of the employees which shows that he has not been deprived of it. In the alternative, this deduction is said to be an authorised deduction under Section 7 (2) (h) of the Wages Act. It is argued that under Regulation 24, the employees of the Corporation are to be treated at par with the employees of the State Government and when the arrears of the State Government's employees are being deposited in the general provident fund account then the said provision is applicable to the employees of the Corporation also. His contention is that the employees of the Corporation cannot ask for the quantum of allowance as payable to the State Government employees and contest the mode of paying the same which would amount to blowing hot and cold in the same breath. The deposit of arrears of dearness allowance in (he general provident fund account is said to be a policy decided on the basis of instructions and guidance given by the State Government as is provided in Section 20 (4) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has also been challenged by putting forward the argument that complicated questions of law cannot be decided by the Authority and if the validity of any order is to be challenged then it should be done in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and not before the Authority under the Wages Act. According to him exercise of jurisdiction by the Authority amounts to material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction because the Corporation is to obey all orders passed by the State Government and without getting the same quashed no relief can be granted against the petitioner. According to the petitioner the object of Regulation 24 is fulfilled as soon as the employees of the Corporation are treated similar to the Government servants in the matter of dearness allowance and beyond that they are not entitled to anything. Emphasis has also been laid on the ground that this matter is of national interest and the payment of arrears of dearness allowance in cash would directly affect the economy of the country and the rate of growing inflation. The Government has adopted the present decision after taking into consideration such and other aspects which has to be accepted.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has contended that the persons to whom the provisions of the Wages Act are applicable are to be paid wages without any deductions in accordance with the Section 6 of the Wages Act. This provides that all wages shall be paid in current coin or in currency notes and it is only under the authority of the employee that the wages can be paid either by cheque or by crediting the wages in his bank account. Section 7 permits the authorised deduction and for the present purpose Section 7 (2) (h) is relevant which reads as under:- "section (2)- Deductions from the wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds only namely: (h)- deductions required to be made by order of a Court or other authority competent to make such order. " It is contended that the Authority under the Wages Act has to decide whether the authority which has made the order to make a deduction can be said to be a competent authority or not. There is no dispute that dearness allowance payable to an employee is part of wages as defined in Section2 (vi) of the Wages Act. There is no dispute about the amount payable also and the only question is whether it has to be paid in cash or it can be deposited in the account of the employee. This is said to be a matter with the jurisdiction of the Authority and cannot be thrown out simply by saying that this is a complicated question of law. It is contended that the State Government is not the competent authority to pass any order in respect of employees of the Corporation which is a body constituted under the Central Act and has its own Board of Directors and Executive Committee etc. to manage its affairs. Thus, any authority, to become a competent authority, to authorise a deduction has to be an authority under the Act and its place cannot be taken by the State Government. The maintainability of a revision by the petitioner is also challenged on the contention that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as well as the District Judge have exercised jurisdiction vested in them and their decisions cannot be challenged merely on the ground that they should have arrived at a different conclusion. The first question which arises is whether the Authority under the Wages Act has jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the non-petitioner No. 2. In this connection both the parties have placed reliance on Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjain Vs. Surajmal Mehta (l ). In this case the employees of an Electricity Board were served with notices that their services would no longer be required upon this an application on behalf of the employees was submitted under sec. 15 (2) of the Wages Act to recover wages for the notice period and also retrenchment compensation payable to them under Sec. 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act. This claim was contested by the employer and the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Wages Act was also challenged. In this connection it was held that the Authority under the Wages Act cannot entertain a claim for compensation under Sec. 25 FF of the Industrial Disputes Act as it involved complicated questions of law. The proper authority was held to be the Labour Court. The compensation payable under Section 25 F, 25ff and 25fff of the Industrial Disputes Act was held to be included in the definition of wages but no time limit was fixed for the payment of this compensation. Referring to the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Wages Act, it was observed as under:- "it is explicit from the terms of Sec. 15 (2) that the Authority appointed under Sub-Section (l) has jurisdiction to entertain applications only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised under Sections 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Sec. 5 The only applications which the Authority can entertain are those where deductions unauthorised under the Act are made from wages or there has been delay in payment beyond the wage period and the time of payment of wages fixed or prescribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, Section 15 (2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment under Section 3 are certain and such that they cannot be disputed. It is true that the Authority has the jurisdiction to try matters which are incidental to the claim in question. It is also true that while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to the claim or not care should be taken neither to unduly expand nor curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority But it has at the same time to be kept in mind that the jurisdiction under Section 15 is a special jurisdiction. The Authority is conferred with the power to award compensation over and above the liability for penalty of fine which an employer is liable to incur under Section 20. " xxx xxx xxx ''the question, therefore, is whether on the footing that compensation payable under Sections 25 FF and 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act being wages, within the meaning of Section 2 (vi) (d) of the Act, a claim for it on the ground that its payment was delayed by an employer could be entertained under Section 15 (2) of the Act. In our view it could not be so entertained In the first place, the claim made in the instant case is not a simple case of deduct on having been unauthorisedly made or payment having been delayed beyond the wage periods and the time of payment fixed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. In the second place, in view of the defence taken by Respondent I, the Authority would inevitably have to enter into questions arising under the proviso to section 25 FF vis , whether there was any interruption in the employment of the workmen, whether the conditions of service under the Board were any the less favourable than those under the company and whether the Board, as the new employer, had become liable to pay com-pensation to the workmen if there was retrenchment in the future. Such an inquiry would necessarily be a prolonged inquiry involving questions of fact and of law. Besides, the failure to pay compensation on the ground of such a plea cannot be said to be either a deduction which is unauthorised under the Act, nor can it fall under the class of delayed wages as envisaged by Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act. It may be that there may conceivably be cases of claims of compensation which are either admitted or which cannot be disputed which by reason of its falling under the definition of wages the Authority may have jurisdiction to try and determine. But we do not think that a claim for compensation under section 25 FF which is denied by the employer on the ground that it was defeated by the proviso to that section, of which all the conditions were fulfilled, is one such claim which can fall within the ambit of section 15 2 ). " ;