Brij Behari Lal v. Union of India — 1971 DIGILAW 249 (ALL)

ORDER S.N. Katju, J. - These are two applications in revision which arose out of proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The applicant Brij Behari Lal was employed as Station Master at Ramnagar, N.E. Rly. in the scale of Rs. 150-225. The station was admittedly upgraded with the result that the pay scale of the Station Master was put on the pay scale of Rs. 250-380. Even after the aforesaid change in the nature of the applicant's post he was not paid the salary in the higher scale. He claimed Rs. 562-50 on account of deductions made from his salary to which he was entitled from 1-4-61 to 20-11-61 and Rs. 410/- for the period beginning from 16-2-62 to 15-4-62. 3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter called the Authority), viz., the City Magistrate of Bareilly took the view that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the competent authority under the Railway Establishment Code and held further that even on merits the applicant was not entitled to the amount claimed by him. The learned District Judge upheld the view of the Authority and has held that the question could not be raised and could not be agitated before the Authority. 4. The applicant has contended that because of the upgrading of the post that he was holding his pay scale had been automatically raised and he was entitled to his salary on the basis of the aforesaid increased pay scale and therefore the deduction from what was properly due to him as salary were illegal. The question for consideration before the Authority was whether the wages of the applicant had been paid to him without deduction of any kind except those authorised by or under the Act. 5. This was a matter which came within the purview of the Authority under the Act and the view taken by him is not correct. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Shri Ambica Mills Co. v. S.B. Bhatt, A.I.R. 1961 SC 970: "Section 15 confers jurisdiction on the authority appointed under the said section to hear and decide for any specified area claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Shri Ambica Mills Co. v. S.B. Bhatt, A.I.R. 1961 SC 970: "Section 15 confers jurisdiction on the authority appointed under the said section to hear and decide for any specified area claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area. It is thus clear that the only claims which can be entertained by the Authority are claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages. ...................... In dealing with claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages the authority inevitably would have to consider questions incidental to the said matters. In determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be _ taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to effect or impair the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority." In the present case the question whether the applicant was entitled to the increased pay scale from the date of his appointment as, the Station Master of the upgraded railway station was undoubtedly a question which was in any case incidental to the applicant's claim arising out of deductions made under the Payment of Wages Act. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in A.V.DCosta v. B.C. Patel, 1955 SCR 1353 : A.I.R. 1955 SC 412) in which it was held that a claim for potential wages did not come within the purview of the Act and it could not be agitated under it. In the aforesaid case the respondent was an employee of the Central Railway as a daily rated casual labourer. He had contended that his claims to be placed on a scheme of monthly wages was ignored by the Authority concerned and he had been superseded by others. He claimed that he was entitled to be paid a higher salary under the monthly wage scheme. He had contended that his claims to be placed on a scheme of monthly wages was ignored by the Authority concerned and he had been superseded by others. He claimed that he was entitled to be paid a higher salary under the monthly wage scheme. The Supreme Court held: "The appellant is responsible to pay the respondent only such wages as are shown in the relevant register of wages presumably maintained by the department under the provisions of the Act; but he cannot be directed to pay the respondent higher wages on the determination by the authority that he should have been placed on the monthly wages scheme." The Supreme Court further observed: "If the respondent had been on the cadre of monthly wages and if the appellant had withheld his rise in wages to which he was automatically entitled, without any orders of his superior officers, he might justly have claimed the redress of his grievance from the authority under the Act, as it would have amounted to an underpayment. But in the present case, on the case as made on behalf of the respondent, orders of the superior officers were necessary to upgrade him from a daily wage-earner to a higher scale. The authority under the Act has not been empowered under Section 15 to make any such direction to those superior officers." It has to be seen whether the applicant was on the cadre of an upgraded post. Admittedly the post of the Station Master of Ram Nagar Railway Station had been upgraded and it carried the pay scale of Rs. 250-380. Once the applicant was allowed to continue on the upgraded post as Station Master of Ram Nagar Railway Station he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 250-380/-. 7. Rule 2019 of the Railway Fundamental Rules - Service Conditions, Pay and Deputation - (Chapter XX) runs thus: "Rule 2019. (F.R. 23).- Change of pay of Post- The holder of a post the pay of which is changed, shall be treated as if he were transferred to a new post on the new pay provided that he may at his option retain his old pay until the date on which he earned his next or any subsequent increment on the old scale, or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay on that time scale. The option once exercised is final." It has not been shown that the applicant was not entitled to the advantages of Rule 2019. He must be treated as having been transferred to the upgraded post of the Station Master, Ramnagar Railway Station on the pay scale of Rs. 250-380. It was contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the D.T.S., N.E. Rly., Izatnagar had by his order withheld the increment of the applicant with cumulative effect with loss of seniority for a period of three years from 19-1-1969. That only meant that the applicant's increment with cumulative effect and consequential loss of seniority had been withheld for a period of three years. If he was put on an upgraded post, it might be that his increment would remain stopped till the expiry of the aforesaid period of1 three years but the effect of that order cannot take away the right of the applicant to draw his salary on the higher scale of Rs. 250-380. Furthermore it appears that "as a result of Selection Board for the post of Station Masters in the scale of Rs. 200-300 held on 6th July, 1959, 7th July, 1959, 8th July, 1959, 9th July, 1959, 27th July, 1959, 29th July, 1959, 30th July, 1959, 31st July, 1959 and 19th September, 1959 the following thirty officers have been placed on the panel finally. The names are in the order of their seniority as position on the panel: .... .. .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... (18) Brij Behari Lal.- Izatnagar". Formerly the applicant was in the grade of Rs. 150-225. It can be said that in spite of the aforesaid order withholding the increment of the applicant he on a date subsequent to 19-1-1959 was approved to be placed on the panel for the post of Station Masters in the scale of Rs. 200-300. That would again indicate that the aforesaid withholding of the increment of the applicant was directly confined within its own limits and it did not come in the way of the applicant being chosen for the post of a Station Master in the scale of Rs. 200-300. 8. I have no hesitation in holding that once the applicant was allowed to serve in the upgraded post of the Station Master, Ramnagar Railway Station, he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 200-300. 8. I have no hesitation in holding that once the applicant was allowed to serve in the upgraded post of the Station Master, Ramnagar Railway Station, he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 250-380 and if his right to receive salary in the higher pay scale was disputed by the railway establishment, the matter could be agitated before the Authority and he had jurisdiction to deal with it. It could not be said that the claim of the applicant was based on a potential right to receive a higher salary. He had been placed on the cadre of a station master who was entitled to receive his salary in the scale of Rs. 250-380 and he was automatically entitled to receive it and since the opposite parties had withheld the applicant's rise in his salary he could justly ask for "the redress of the claim from the Authority under the Act as it would amount to an underpayment." 9. I, therefore, set aside the order of the court below and direct the learned District Judge to consider the applicant's claim on merits. The appeal shall be restored back to its original number before the learned District Judge of Bareilly for decision according to law. The applications in revision are allowed with costs.