S. N. BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THESE five revision petitions arise out of a common judgment passed by the District Judge, Ajmer, dated 11. 7. 1986 in appeal u/s 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, against the order of the Authority under the payment of Wages Act, dismissing the applications of the non-petitioner No. 1.
(2.) SITARAM Verma, non-petitioner No. l was employed by the petitioner in its factory at Ajmer. He was elected President of the Ajmer Oudhogik Karmachari Sangh in January, 1980 and was declared as a protected workman by order of the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer, vide his order dated 10. 6. 81. He was given an charge-sheet on 20. 6. 81 and was also placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry, After holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled and the enquiry report was submitted on 24. 8. 1981. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order, dismissing the non-petitioner No. 1 vide order dated 16. 9. 81. He was further informed that since he was a protected workman, an application u/s 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act',) was being submitted for granting permission for his dismissal. He was further informed that he would be under statutory suspension from 16. 9. 1981 till the application u/s 33 (3) of the Act was decided. Non petitioner No. l, moved the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for getting subsistence allowance upto 31. 8. 1981. Ultimately, he was paid subsistence allowance on 9. 11. 1984 after the order of the District Judge. The dispute between the parties is about the subsistence from allowance 1. 9. 1981 to 31. 12. 1984. Non-petitioner No. 1 submitted five different applications before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and these applications were allowed vide order dated 31. 12. 1983. On appeal by the petitioner, they were remanded by order dated 7. 8. 1984 for considering the evidence afresh and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dismissed the applications in all the five cases vide order dated 28. 7. 1985 and in other four cases vide order dated 23. 8. 85. The non-petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal before the District Judge under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which came to be decided by the impugned order dated 11. 7. 1986. It is against this order dated 11. 7. 1986 that these five revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners. Mr. B. L. Samdaria, representing non-petitioner No. l raised a preliminary objection that unless payment is made to the non-petitioner No. l, these revision petitions are not maintainable and he drew my attention to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which provides that before filing an appeal, payment has to be made. Revision Petition is not provided under the Payment of Wages Act and these revision petitions have been filed u/s 115 C. P. C. There is no such restriction in Civil Procedure Code and hence, this preliminary objection taken by Mr. Samdaria is over-ruled.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the learned District Judge had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order because the subsistence allowance which has became payable in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Solanki's case (1) cannot be termed as 'wages' with the meaning of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and therefore, it is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act which has to determine and quantity the subsistence allowance which is payable to the workman. He also submitted that there is no provision either under the Certified Standing Order of the Company or the Model Standing Orders providing for payment of the subsistance allowances during the period of statutory suspension of the workman. He has further submitted that even in Solanki's case the Supreme Court has also observed that in case where the proceedings are completed and the order of dismissal is successfully challenged on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance for the period of statutory suspension, a liberty has been given to the management to ask for the permission of the Authority under section 33 (3) of the Act and hence, payment of wages Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for the subsistence allowances for the period of statutory suspension u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. He has further submitted that learned District Judge has not given and opportunity to the petitioner before finalising the quantum of the subsistence allowance and he has accepted whatever the workman had submitted in his application, without any scrutiny whatsoever and has passed the impugned order without any basis or material on record for the purpose. He has further submitted that the learned District Judge has seriously erred in granting damages and the costs to the non-petitioner No. 1 as according to the earlier view of the Supreme Court the petitioner was perfectly justified in not paying the subsistence allowances to the non-petitioner No. 1 for the period during which he remained under statutory suspension. It is only on account of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Solanki's case that the non-petitioner No. 1 can be held to be entitled to the subsistence allowance. On the other hand, Shri B. L. Samdaria, representing non-petitioner No. 1, has very vehemently supported the judgment of the learned District Judge and has submitted that the non-petitioner No. 1 is governed by Model Standing Orders since 8. 1. 1981 and thereafter by the Certified Standing Orders for the Company. He has placed reliance on Rohtak Hissar District Electric Supply Co, Vs. State of Punjab (2), Raman Nandison Vs. Madras State Electricity Board (3), Ghanshyam V. State of MP (4 ). ;