- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Prakash Agnihotri v. Union Of India
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff was employed by the Western Railway and faced two dismissals: first on 2-5-1949 and then on 19-8-1950. On both occasions, he was reinstated—first on 18-4-1950 and then on 3-2-1951. During the periods between dismissal and reinstatement, the plaintiff was not paid his salary, as those periods were treated as dias non. The plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court seeking recovery of the withheld salary. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court dismissed it, holding the suit barred under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal, which was heard by a learned single Judge who referred the question of whether the suit was barred by Sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act to the present court for consideration.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of withheld wages is barred by the provisions of Sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff contended that the non-payment of wages during the disputed periods did not amount to a deduction from wages but was a complete non-payment of salary.
- Accordingly, the plaintiff argued that Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, which provides a remedy for unlawful deductions, was not applicable to his case.
Court's Response to Arguments
- The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, reasoning that non-payment of wages for the disputed period was effectively an unjustified deduction.
- The Railway’s treatment of the period as dias non was not supported by any rule or agreement that would justify withholding wages for those days.
- Since the deduction was not authorized under Section 7 of the Act, the plaintiff’s remedy lay under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Anant Ram v. District Magistrate, Jodhpur, A.I.R 1956 Rajasthan 145 | Suit for recovery of wages barred under Sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act when remedy exists under the Act. | The court respectfully agreed with the Division Bench’s conclusion that the suit was barred under the Act's provisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, focusing on Sections 7, 15, and 22. Section 7 authorizes certain deductions from wages; the deductions in this case were not authorized under this section. Section 15 provides a statutory remedy for unlawful deductions through an application to an appointed authority rather than through a civil suit. Section 22 explicitly bars courts from entertaining suits for recovery of wages or deductions if the sum could have been recovered through the statutory application process under Section 16. The court determined that the non-payment of wages during the disputed periods constituted an unauthorized deduction. Consequently, the plaintiff’s remedy was to seek redress under the Payment of Wages Act, not through a civil suit. The court relied on the precedent set in Anant Ram v. District Magistrate, Jodhpur, which held similarly. Thus, the suit was barred under the Act.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was that the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
The direct effect of this decision is that the plaintiff cannot pursue a civil suit for recovery of the withheld wages but must instead seek remedy through the statutory authority designated under the Payment of Wages Act. The decision does not establish any new precedent beyond affirming existing law and clarifying the procedural channel for wage recovery under the Act.
Bishambhar Dayal, J.:— This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff was employed by the Western Railway and he was dismissed by an order dated 2-5-1949, but he was reinstated on 18-4-1950. He was again dismissed on 19-8-1950 and was again reinstated on 3-2-1951. For both these periods the plaintiff was not paid his salary as this period was treated ‘dias non.’ The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit in the civil court for the recovery of the salary. The suit was decreed by the court below but has been dismissed by the lower appellate court as barred under Sec. 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. This second appeal was, therefore, filed by the plaintiff and it was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court who has referred the following question for our consideration:
“Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Secs. 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act?”
2. Sec. 15(1) of the said Act provides for appointment of a Commissioner etc. as the authority for deciding such cases. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is relevant and is as follows:
“Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, . . . . . such person himself, or any legal practitioner, or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-Sec. (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-Sec. (3).”
3. There are provisions for the hearing of such an application and the granting of the relief. This section, therefore, provides for an application being made for the recovery of wages wherein deduction has been made from the wages contrary to the provisions of this Act. Now Sec. 7 authorises certain deductions to be made from the wages. Admittedly, the deduction made in the particular case before us is not covered by any authorised deduction under Sec. 7 of the Act. The position, therefore, was that the Railway deducted from the wages of the plaintiff certain amounts on the ground that during the period under dispute the plaintiff was not working and treated the period as ‘dias non.’ On a plain reading of Sec. 15, therefore, the plaintiff had a right under sub-Sec. (2) to claim this deduction by an application under sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
4. The contention, of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that this non-payment of his wages does not amount to a deduction from his wages but is non-payment of the whole salary and is, therefore, not covered by Sec. 15(2) quoted above. We are unable to agree with this line of argument. When the plaintiff after once being dismissed from service was reinstated by the authority itself the authority by necessary implication admitted that his service continued and as such he would normally be entitled to his wages. But the authority did not pay the wages either fully or partly for some reason which they described as for period ‘dias non’. By using this term the Railway obviously means that those days are not to he counted because the defendant did not work. There is no such rule which may be said to be a part of the agreement with the plaintiff that on any date on which the plaintiff did not work he would not be entitled to his wages. Thus the reason given for non-payment of the wages for those days was not a good reason and was, therefore, an unjustified deduction from the wages of the plaintiff. Wherever wages are due and they are withheld for some reason or the other it is clearly a case of deduction of wages and if the reason for deducting the wages is not an authorised reason under Sec. 7 then the employee has a remedy under Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
5. Sec. 22 of the Payment of Wages Act then provides:
“No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages in so far as the sum so claimed—
(a) ......
(b) ......
(c) ......
(d) could have been recovered by an application under Sec. 16.”
6. We are, therefore, of opinion that the present suit being for the recovery of the deductions made from the wages of the plaintiff is barred under Sec. 22(d) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
7. The only case directly on the point cited before us is Anant Ram v. District Magistrate, Jodhpur . A.I.R 1956 Rajasthan 145., where a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court came to the same conclusion and we respectfully agree with this view.
8. Our answer to the question referred to us therefore, is that the suit was barred by the provisions of Secs. 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Question answered.
Alert