- (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated January 23, 1996 passed in Cr. Misc. Application No. 30/95.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and learned Public Prosecutor at length.
(3.) FACTS in brief are as follows: Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur passed an award dated July 21, 1988 in case No. 25/85 bywhich retrenchment of the petitioner was found illegal and he was in railway administration preferred a writ petition being aggrieved by the award before this Court which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1195/89, DPOv. CIT, Jaipur, which was finally disposed of on March 20, 1990 by a single Judge of this Court. It was partly accepted and award was modified to the effect that only half of the back wages from the date of termination upto the date of re-engagement of the workman shall be payable to him. However, the petitioner was reinstated in compliance of the award but nothing was paid to him against back wages. Being aggrieved by the order dated March 20, 1990 passed by single Judge, the petitioner preferred a DB Civil Special Appeal No. 110/90, Ram Singh v. DPO, Northern Railway which was decided by the Division Bench vide order dated July 27, 1990 and the order of single Bench dated March 20, 1990 was affirmed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a claim under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act on October 11, 1990 for implementation of the award dated July 21, 1988 after final decision of the Division Bench. The same application was registered as PWA No. 277/90 and the same was decided on September 30, 1994 by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly half back wages amounting to Rs. 37,872. 50 was ordered to be paid by the respondents i. e. Railway Administration along with three times compensation amounting to Rs. 1,13,617 in the Court of authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Thus total amount (sic) the Court of authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Against the order dated September 30, 1994 that respondent railway administration instead of approaching before the learned District Judge in appeal as prescribed by the Payment of Wages Act directly approached before the Central Administrative Tribunal Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in case of Original Application No. 244/95, Union of India v. Payment of Wages Act Authority. The Tribunal passed an order on January 18, 1996 by which application was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction and returned the application to the applicant for seeking remedy before the appropriate legal forum. Thereafter the amount was never deposited under the proviso of Sec. 17 (A) (I) before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act nor appeal was filed against the order dated September 30, 1994 within the limitation period before an appropriate legal forum. Thus order dated September 30, 1994 became final Under Section 17 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application Under Section 15 (5) of the Payment of Wages Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for recovery of the payment in pursuance of the order dated September 30, 1994 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. Thereupon the railway administration moved an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner for staying the recovery in pursuance of the order dated September 30, 1994. The case was registered as Cr. Misc. Application No. 30/95 and notices were issued to the petitioner. In the meantime the railway administration who had also preferred DB Civil Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court against the order dated March 20, 1990 passed by single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1195/89 and which was decided on September 18, 1995 and the award was modified to the effect that the applicant workman will not be entitled for any back wages. While passing the order on September 18, 1995 in DB Civil Special Appeal the Division Bench did not find any illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order passed by the single Judge. There was a clear cut error on the face of record, according to the petitioner, to the effect that when one Division Bench upheld the Judgment dated March 20, 1990 of the single Judge then in the circumstances another Division Bench of this Court could not have reversed the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court. In case of any difference of opinion with earlier decision of Division Bench in same case then it would have been just and proper to refer the matter before a larger Bench. On the basis of judgment dated September 18, 1995 passed by the High Court, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on January 23, 1996 by which he stayed recovery of back wages under Sec. 15 (5) of the Payment of Wages Act and closed the matter of recovery. Aggrieved by this order this revision has been preferred by the petitioner.;