1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Respondent No. 2, Arun Kumar was an employee of petitioner school. His services were terminated on 31-3-2001. Thereafter, on 23-6-2004, he filed an application before Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which was registered as P.W.A Case No. 60 of 2004. In the said application, he claimed that from 13-4-1991, he was appointed as O.S.D in the petitioner school and he was paid less wages than the wages required to be paid in accordance with the recommendations of V Pay Commission w.e.f 1-4-1996. It was stated that the difference came to Rs. 6,75,918/- (about Rs. 6,80,000/). Ten times compensation was also claimed. It has been held in U.P Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad v. Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 2006 (109) FLR 1101 : (2006) 4) ALJ 203) and R.D.S.O Basic School v. Prescribed Authority, 1992 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C 1472 that Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not applicable to educational institutions.
3. Through order dated 20-12-2004, Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act condoned the delay. The only ground mentioned in the said order for condoning the delay was that since September, 2001 till March, 2004, respondent No. 2 gave several applications to the management. This is absolutely no ground for condoning the delay. In any case for delay since 1996 till 2001 when services of respondent No. 2 were terminated, there was absolutely no explanation. Against order dated 20-12-2004, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by District Judge Bijnore on 15-2-2005. I find that both the orders are utterly illegal as neither any ground for delay was taken nor any finding was recorded. The Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that filing repeated representations is no ground to condone the delay and it cannot keep a course of action alive.
1. C. Jocob v. Director of Geology & Mining, 2008 AIR SCW 7233
2. (2006) 4 SCC 322 : AIR 2006 SC 1581 “Karnataka State Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan”
4. Ultimately, Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allowed the claim of respondent No. 2 through order dated 25-3-2006 holding that from 1-4-1996 to 31-3-2001 respondent No. 2 is entitled to salary in accordance with the V Pay Commission amounting to about Rs. 2,70,000/- (for this period about Rs. 2,40,000/- were paid). Seven times of the said amount, i.e Rs. 18,85,429/- was imposed as damages. Total amount directed to be paid came to Rs. 21,54,776/-. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 20-12-2004 and 25-3-2006.
5. Recommendations of V Pay Commission when accepted by the Government are applicable upon Government employees. They are not applicable on privately managed educational institutions.
6. Disputed question of entitlement to a particular pay or pay scale cannot be decided in proceedings under Payment of Wages Act. The same principle which applies to applications under Section 33-C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act applies to Payment of Wages Act. It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court that there cannot be any adjudication under Section 33-C (2) of I.D Act.
7. In this regard, reference may be made to the authority reported in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Court, Commissioner, 2007 (113) FLR 50 : 2007 (2) ADJ 25 SC : (2007 (2) ALJ 719). In U.P.S.R.T.C v. Virendra Bhandari, (2006) 10 SCC 211 : (2006 (6) ALJ 241), it has been held that salary in terms of recommendations of Pay Commission cannot be recovered through proceedings under Section 33-C (2).
8. Moreover by virtue of Section 1(6) of Payment of Wages Act an employee drawing more than Rs. 1600/- per month cannot make any claim under the said Act. Not only the employee claimed per month wages but even the per month wages actually paid to respondent No. 2 were more than Rs. 1600/-.
9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.
10. Petition allowed.