- (1.) THE petitioner is an employer and the non-petitioner Ratan Singh is the employed person. The revision is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge (2) Bharatpur, dated May 5, 1984 by which he upheld the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, dated September 30, 1982 and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. By his order, dated September 30, 1982, the Authority decided two applications filed by the employed person Ratan Singh under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act') and directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 25,240/- to the employed person.
(2.) THE material facts may be noticed in brief. The non-petitioner Ratan Singh was holding the post of Assistant Executive Officer in the employer-Bank, Bharatpur. He submitted two applications under Section 15 (2) of the Act claiming wages for the period from July, 1979 to August, 1979 at the rate of Rs. 916/- per month and for the period from September, 1979 to June, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 936/- per month in his first application. He also claimed Rs. 20/- as annual increment. In his second application, he claimed wages for the period from July, 1980 to July, 1981 at the rate of Rs. 916/- per month and also claimed annual increments at the rate of Rs. 40/-per month to Rs. 80/- per month. It was alleged that the employer had wrongly withheld the Payment of Wages to the employed person. The applications were contested by the employer on several grounds. The main grounds taken by the employer were that Ratan Singh was holding the post of Assistant Executive Officer in an officiating capacity. Since his promotion was found improper, he was reverted to the post of clerk which he held in substantive capacity. He was put under suspension on February 2, 1979, as departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The Bank was paying subsistence allowance to Ratan Singh as per rules. The Authority had no jurisdiction to allow wages to Ratan Singh and could not investigate the cause of suspension. Any loss of wages resulting from suspension is not to be deemed to be a reduction from wages under Section 7 of the Act. The Authority after recording the evidence of the parties held: ' (1) The reversion was bad, and (2) The suspension order was not passed by the competent officer. ' He, therefore, rejected the defences taken by the employer and allowed the applications. He directed the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 25,240/- in total under the two applications to the employed person Ratan Singh. The employer went in appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the District Judge which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur. The same contentions were raised by the employer in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge by his impugned order, dated May 5, 1984 dismissed the appeal, and upheld the order of the Authority. Aggrieved against the order of the Additional District Judge, the employer has come up in revision.
(3.) 1 have heard Mr. G. G. Sharma learned Counsel for the employer and Mr. B. Bagri learned Counsel for the employed person.;