MOHD MATIN KIDWAI Vs. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N E RLY IZATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAMMAD Matin Kidwai, an employee of the Oudh Tirhut Railway, was dismissed from service sometime in 1945. He instituted a suit against the dismissal alleging it to be wrongful, and also for the arrears of salary due to him. The suit was decreed with respect to the alleged wrongful dismissal. It was decreed that his dismissal was wrongful. His suit for the arrears of the salary was dismissed. That litigation came to an end when this Court disposed of the second appeal in September 1952. Thereafter, the applicant was reinstated from 1-10-1952. He was not paid any salary or wages for the period from the date of dismissal to 30-9-1952. He filed an application under Section 15, payment of Wages Act, 1936 to the proper authority claiming these unpaid wages amounting to over Rs. 12,000/ -. This application was rejected by the authority in view of his opinion that the claim for the period 3-2-1945 to 23-4-1952 was time barred and that there was bona fide dispute with respect to the remaining claim. Against this dismissal of his application he went up in appeal to the District Judge. This appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay to the District Judge under Section 17, Payment of Wages Act, against that order of the authority. He had, therefore, filed this application in revision against the order of the District Judge.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and are of opinion that the order of the court below was perfectly correct. It is fully supported by the case decided in -- P. Kumar v. Running Shed Foreman, E. I. Rly. ', AIR 1946 Oudh 148 (A ). A contrary view is expressed in -- 'mahomed Haji Umar v. Divisional Superintendent, N. W. Bly. ', AIR 1941 Sind 191 (B ). The question was not directly before the court. But the opinion expressed in.-- 'khema Nand v. East Indian Rly. ', AIR 1943 All 243 (C) is also against the applicant. The question was left open in.-- 'triloki Nath v. Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. , saharanpur', AIR 1946 All 276 (D ). On the other hand, the case reported in -- 'c. S. Lal v. Shaikh Bad-shah', AIR 1955 Bom 75 (E) supports the applicant. But the expression of opinion in this case was as much 'obiter dicta' as it was in the case reported in AIR 1943 All 243 (C ). We are Inclined to agree with the view expressed in AIR 1946 Oudh 148 (A ). Section 17, Payment of Wages Act is

(3.) IT has been strenuously urged that if such an interpretation be given to the provisions of section 17, then it may be possible to urge that Section 15, Sub-section (3) did not contemplate the rejection of the application, as Sub-section (3) provides that after making the. necessary 'enquiry the authority may direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit. The authority has to make an enquiry not for making the pretence of enquiry but for coining to a conclusion how far the claim is justified and no provision giving an authority power to decree the claim in full can be interpreted to mean that it has no power to decree the claim in part or to dismiss it in full if the enquiry shows that nothing be due. Sub-section (3) itself does not enjoin the authority to make the order in favour of the employee in all. circumstances. He is given discretion to pass that order, and it seems to mean that he is to pass an order which he considers to be just. He could, therefore, in our opinion, reject the application on merits if he is not satisfied that it should be allowed wholly or in part.