- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Punjab v. Jaswinder Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, employed as a conductor with the appellant – State of Punjab through the General Manager, Punjab Roadways – complained that certain amounts were illegally deducted from his salary. On 10-1-1988 he invoked Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, seeking a direction for refund of the allegedly delayed/deducted wages.
The prescribed authority allowed the application on 27-11-1987, declaring prior disciplinary orders dated 24-2-1984, 1-6-1984 and 4-6-1985 “illegal and void ab initio.” An appeal by the employer was dismissed on 11-5-1988. The State then filed Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1989 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which also ended in dismissal on 18-4-2007. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has jurisdiction to set aside or ignore disciplinary orders imposing the penalty of withholding increments when those orders have attained finality.
- Whether an employee can bypass available statutory or civil remedies against disciplinary orders and instead seek relief before the Payment of Wages authority.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Payment of Wages authority lacks jurisdiction to interfere with or overturn disciplinary orders, which had become final because the respondent never challenged them through the statutorily prescribed mechanisms.
- Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 325, where the Supreme Court held that the Payment of Wages authority cannot examine the validity of disciplinary penalties.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion records that the respondent, though served with notice, did not appear before the Supreme Court. No arguments on his behalf are reported.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 325 | The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary orders. | Relied upon to conclude that the prescribed authority acted without jurisdiction in ordering payment of wages already withheld pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's contention that the Payment of Wages authority is not an appellate forum in disciplinary matters. The Court reasoned that:
- Disciplinary proceedings had culminated in lawful orders withholding the respondent’s increments.
- Those orders were never challenged through the statutory appeal process or any other competent forum; hence they attained finality.
- The Payment of Wages authority cannot “sit in appeal” over such orders; therefore, its direction to refund withheld wages exceeded its jurisdiction.
- The High Court erred in ignoring the disciplinary orders on the ground that due procedure had not been followed, because the appropriate remedy for such a grievance lay elsewhere, not under the Payment of Wages Act.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED – The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s judgment in Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1989 and the orders of both the prescribed and appellate authorities under the Payment of Wages Act are set aside, and the respondent’s application under Section 15(3) of the Act is dismissed.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that authorities constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 cannot review or nullify disciplinary orders; employees must pursue appropriate statutory or civil remedies against such orders. No new legal principle is created, but existing jurisdictional boundaries are reinforced.
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared for the respondent, though service is complete on the respondent as per the office report dated 15-5-2017.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 18-4-2007 Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1989, by which Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1989 preferred by the State of Punjab through the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, was dismissed.
3. The facts of the case leading to this appeal are, that the respondent was working as a conductor with the appellant. On 10-1-1988, he filed an application under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for a direction to the appellant herein for refund of delayed/deducted wages from the salary of the respondent. The aforesaid application was contested by the appellant. It was contended, that the deductions have been made from the salary of the respondent in accordance with law.
4. The prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, accepted the application filed by the respondent, vide order dated 27-11-1987 and took the view that orders dated 24-2-1984, 1-6-1984 and 4-6-1985 passed by the appellant were illegal and were void ab initio. The appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the appellate authority, vide judgment dated 11-5-1988. The State took up the matter before the High Court by means of civil revision. The High Court was of the view, that though the remedy available to the respondent was to file a statutory appeal or to file a civil suit, however, since due procedure was not followed, the orders passed for withholding increments violating principles of natural justice, have rightly been ignored. Hence, this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant State contends, that the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, could not have ignored the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings, which became final without any challenge under the statutory rules or before any competent court. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1998) 9 SCC 325, in which this Court has observed in para 2 as under:
“2. Though notice was served, the respondent has chosen to remain absent. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed under the disciplinary proceedings. We find that the argument of the learned counsel is well founded and the orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was without jurisdiction. Accordingly the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and confirmed by the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
6. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the respondent in which orders were passed imposing punishment of withholding the increments. Without challenging the said order in the appropriate forum, it was not open to the respondent to file an application before the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to direct payment of wages, which has already been withheld in the disciplinary proceedings. The prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings and therefore it has no right to sit in appeal and to set aside the order of withholding of increments passed in the disciplinary proceedings. In our view, the High Court has not correctly appreciated the issues raised before it and the view of the High Court that the orders dated 24-2-1984, 1-6-1984 and 4-6-1985 have to be ignored since according to the High Court they were passed without following the due procedure, cannot be sustained. In our view, the appropriate remedy available to the respondent was either to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority or to avail such other remedy in accordance with law, but certainly not to file an application before the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act. We are thus of the view, that the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the civil revision filed by the respondent.
7. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment Civil Revision No. 1282 of 1989 of the High Court as well as orders passed by the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the appellate authority are set aside, and the application filed by the respondent under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert