In a recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India viz. State of Punjab vs. Jaswinder Singh, the Apex Court hasheld that the authority under Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to set aside the punitive orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The workmantherefore cannot file an application under the Payment of Wages Act, if he has not challenged the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and allowed them to attain finality.
The facts of the case are as under:
The Respondent was working with the Appellant. 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.
The prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, accepted the application filed by the Respondent and took the view that orders 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. The State took up the matter before the High Court by means of civil revision. The High Court was of the view, that though theremedy 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 of principles of natural justice, haverightly been ignored. Hence, the appeal.
Counsel appearing for the Appellant-State contended 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. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh reported in (1998) 9 SCC 325, in which this Court has observed in para 2 as under:
“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 interferewith the orders passed under the disciplinary proceedings. We find that theargument 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.”
The Court agreed with the Petitioner. 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 theRespondent to file an application before the prescribed authority under thePayment 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.