JUDGMENT 1. (Oral)- This writ petition has been taken up for hearing and final disposal moved by the Rajasthan State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Federation"). Before dealing with a legal issue which arises for consideration of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4645/94 which was filed by the Federation in this Court on 14.7.94, I would like to narrate the facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the respondent No. 1 was an employee of the Federation who was appointed as a Clerk in the Federation on 7.12.81. It is alleged that during service he committed certain acts of omissions and commissions and consequent upon a domestic enquiry was initiated against him. The respondent No. 1 was found guilty of the charges as a result of the enquiry and his services came to be terminated vide order dated 20.1.84. 2. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of termination, the respondent No. 1 challenged the same by filing a complaint under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops & Commerical Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1958") before the Authority i.e. the respondent No. 2 constituted by the State Government under the said Act of 1958. The said Authority after a detailed hearing and after examining the relevant evidence led on the record by the respective parties to the complaint, vide order dated 20.7.89 directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. However, the respondents did not grant any relief as regards the payment of back wages from the date of suspension upto the date of reinstatement in service except, subsistence allowance which was paid to the said respondent under Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1951 ") 3. However, the respondents did not grant any relief as regards the payment of back wages from the date of suspension upto the date of reinstatement in service except, subsistence allowance which was paid to the said respondent under Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1951 ") 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Authority under the Act of 1958, the respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition in this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 373/89 and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 13.9.93 remanded back the matter to the Authority with a direction to record its specific findings on the following issues (i) as to whether the respondent No. 1 Sultan Singh was entitled to payment of wages between the period of suspension and reinstatement and if the wages are due to him for the disputed period, to what permissible limit? (iii) the Authority should decide the aforesaid question after examining the merit and demerit of the case and, thereafter, final order should be passed by the said Authority. 4. Thereafter, the Authority passed a,final order on the merits ofr-the case on 29.1.94, which is subject-matter of -challenge in the instant writ petition. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar, I deem it appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the Authority in the impugned 'order dated 29.1.94. The first question which had arisen for consideration of the Authority' was as to whether the workman (respondent No. 1) was entitled to the payment of regular pay-scale, particularly when, his services had not been regularised by the Federation and if so, he should be given regular pay-scale as claimed by him? In this regard, the Industrial Tribunal has passed the award dated 26.4.86 in favour of the workman on the principle of equal pay for equal work holding that since the said workman (respondent No. 1) had been discharging his duties on regualr basis, he should not be discriminated on the question of payment of wages which was, . admissible- to a regular employee even though he had been, treated as 4 -daily. wager and was consequently held entitled for, payment of wages as a regular employee of the Federation for the period in dispute. admissible- to a regular employee even though he had been, treated as 4 -daily. wager and was consequently held entitled for, payment of wages as a regular employee of the Federation for the period in dispute. As regards the second question as to whether the workman is entitled for payment of wages for the period in dispute i.e. the intervening period between the date when he was- placed under suspension till the date when he was reinstated in service by, the Federation and it was held by the Authority that he was entitled to payment of wages as admissible to a regular employee @, 3/4th of the total wages admissible to such an employee for the period in dispute. The Authority further opined that since the charges which framed against the said workman by the Federation were neither established nor proved in evidence, the wages for the period in dispute should not be denied to him as the same would have no consequential effect upon his service condition. It was further held by the Authority that keeping in view the directions of this Court vide order dated 13.9.93 (Annexure-1), the respondent No. 1- would be entitled to payment of @ 3/4th total wages due for the period in dispute, and.,,wquld further be entitled for the payment of all consequential benefits.as asmissible to other employees who are performing their duties in the, similar capacity towards the Management. 5. During the course - of hearing, Mr. Pahwa, learned counsel for. the petitioner has assailed the impugned-order of the Authority on the grounds interalia that the Federation is a Registered Society under the Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 (Rajasthan Act No. 39 of 1965) which came into force w.e.f. 13.9.65. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1958 which came into force w.e.f. 24.7.58 which is a law regulating the condition of work and employment of the workman which are governed by the salutary provisions'of the said Act. Section 3(2). of the Act of 1958, provides as under "3. Section 3(2). of the Act of 1958, provides as under "3. (2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt either permanently or for any specified period any establishment or class of establishments or person or class of persons, to which or to whom this Act applies, from -or any of its provisions subject to such conditions as the State Government may deem fit." 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel -for the petitioner contended at the bar that the Federation is exempted from the,.:purview of the applicability of the Act of 1958 and that any dispute concerning the employer and employee relationship would also be a subject-matter of consideration by the Authority constituted under the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the State Government has got the control over the subject-matter at issue in view of bye-law No. 74 of the Rajasthan .State Co-operative Housing Finance Society Limited ' which stipulates, as under "74. The Government shall appoint a Managing Director of the Society who shall control and supervise the Administrative set-up subject to the supervision and control of the Board of Directors. The Manaaina Director shall perform such duties and functions as the Board : may entrust or delegate to him." 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of C.V. Raman v. Management of Bank of India and Another and other connected civil appeals which were decided by a common order by the Apex Court vide order dated 21.4.88 reported in AIR 1988 (SC) 1369 as well as 1988 (3) SCC 105 wherein, the substantial questions of law which were at issue before the Apex Court as to whether the State Bank of India and the Nationalized Banks can be considered as establishments constituted by the Central Government within the ambit of exemption clause (a) of Section 4(1) of Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act as well as parimateria provisions of Shops and Establishments Acts in other State and as such exempted from the purview of such enactments? It was held by the Apex Court, as under "Even though the' State Bank of India and the nationalised banks, having_ corporate structure and freedom in the matter of day to day administration, may not be owned as such by the Central Government and its employees may not be the employees of the Central not 'Government, they certainly will fall within the purview of the expression "under the Central Government", for purpose of the Acts dealing with Shops and Commercial Establishments in view of the existence of arc deep and pervasive control' of the Central Government over these banks. This is clear from a conspectus of the provisions of the State to Bank of India Act, 1955 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition 2sr and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with the dictionary 9" - meanings of, the term `under' in absence ,of statutory definition of that word.,. 8. It was further held by the Apex Court, as under hi "Consequently, the mere fact that the State Bank of India and the nationalised banks are different entities as corporate bodies for certain puposes cannot by itself be a circumstance from which it may be deduced that they cannot be establishments under the Central 'Government." 9. In the result, the Apex Court on the basis of the view that the State Bank of India and other nationalised banks are establishments of the Central Government it was not found necessary to consider the question as to whether the Banks are establishments being within the ambit of Factories Act, 1948, are in respect of matters dealt with in the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act which are governed by a separate law for the time being in force in the State so as to entitle them to claim exemption under Section 4(1)(f) of the said Act with a direction that if any_ appeals preferred by the said employees before the alternative forum viz; the Appellate Authority are pending, the same shall be decided and finally disposed of by the said Authority with an opportunity to the affected employees to take recourse to such other remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that in view of Section 3(a) and 3(2) of the Act 1958, the Federation is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that in view of Section 3(a) and 3(2) of the Act 1958, the Federation is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. The Federation was accordingly directed vide order dated 10.10.96 to place on the record of this Court the relevant documents alongwith supporting affidavit duly clarifying the position with regard to the said provisions as referred to above and also clarifying as to whether the Federation- Establishment was exempted from the purview of the said Act. The affidavit of one Shri R.K. Meena, Managing Director of the Federation dated 7.11.96 has been placed on record of this Court. Perusal of the said affidavit reveals that the Federation is exempted from the purview of the Act of 1958 as per Section 3(A) of the said Act inasmuch as, it is registered Society as per the certificate of Registration (Annexure-1) and Share Capital of the State Government in the Federation is to the extent of 249.84 Lacs. It was further deposed that the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan vide its Notification dated 12.4.90 has exempted the Financial Institutions from the purview of the Act of 1958 and since the Federation comes within the purview of financial institutions, consequently it is also exempted from the operation and the applicability of the said Act. 10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated at the bar that as per the bye-laws of the Federation and since the State Government has control over it, which is reflected from the objects as mentioned in Section 3(13) and 3(14) read with Section 58 of the said bye-laws, 6 Board of Directors comprising of Managing Director are under the control of the State Government, therefore, the Federation is exempted from the applicability of the Act of 1958. 11. During the course of hearing, the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been strongly controverted by Mr. 11. During the course of hearing, the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been strongly controverted by Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 inter alia on the ground that the said respondent was the employee of the Federation and consequent upon his termination from the services of Federation as on 21.1.84, he had challenged the said order before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 373/89 which came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 13.9.93 remanding the matter back to the concerned Authority constituted under the Act of 1958 to record its finding with regard to the question as to whether the said workman (respondent No. 1) was entitled for payment of wages for the period in i dispute i.e. from the date he was placed under suspension to the date when he was reinstated in service consequently his exoneration by the Authority. The said Authority consequently upon the remand finally decided the matter by recording its finding in favour of the workman i.e. the respondent No. 1 that he was entitled to reinstatement in service with 3/4th of the total wages as due and admissible to him in accordance with the rules and in terms of the Award dated 26.4.86 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has further stated that since the dispute had arisen between the parties under the Act of 1958, as i regards the payment of back wages for the period in dispute, the Authority obviously was correct in determining the back wages to the extent of 3/4th of the total wages admissible to him but the said question obviously cannot be decided with reference to the Act of 1958 as the Federation is a Housing Society and hence not a Financial Institution and the Financial Institutions such as a Nationalized Banks and other Co-operative Banks are functioning in the State of Rajasthan therefore, the Federation is obviously and would not be within the ambit of the provisions of the Act of 1958. Counsel further states that there is a special enactment of the Central Government i.e. Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1936") which applies to all the concerned workmen who are employed in any Factory, Railways or any other Establishment which is under the active control of the Central Government as defined and specified in the said Act of 1936. Learned counsel has further contended that the identical question had cropped up for consideration before the learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Small Industry Corporation Limited v. Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Jaipur and others : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19/1987 and the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.12.1988 after taking into the view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of C.V. Raman v. Management of Bank of India (Supra) held that the said Authority related to the Nationalized banks and is quite distinguishable both in law and on facts. I have persued the said judgment given by the learned Division Bench of this Court and I am of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench is fully attracted to the instant case. I am fortified in my observations from the provisions of Section 28A of the Act of 1958 which stipulates, as under "28-A. Notice of dismissal or discharge by employer (1) No employer shall dismiss or discharge from his employment any employee who has been in such employment continuously for a period of not less than 3 months except for a reasonable cause and after giving such employee at least one month's prior notice or on paying him one month's wages in lieu of such notice. (2) Every employee so dismissed or discharged may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner to a prescribed authority within 30 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge on one or more of the following grounds, namely (a) that there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services; or (b) that no notice was served upon him as required by sub-section (1); or (c) that he had not been guilty of any misconduct. (5) The decision of the prescribed authority under this section shall be final and binding both on the employer and the employee." 13. From the perusal of the above provisions, it is apparent that the decision of the perscribed authority constituted under the Act of 1958 with regard to any matter pertaining to dismissal, discharge and termination from service of any employee of the establishment has to be considered as final and binding upon on the employer as well as the employee. In other words, the decision of the said Authority is not open to challenge since otherwise there will be no finality of the decision of the said authority since it will always be open to challenge the said question before any other forum. Consequently, I am of the view that an employee whose services have been terminated as a result of the misconduct by the management and who appealed against the said order to Authority constituted under the Act of 1958 and finally who stood exonerated by.the said Authority, in accordance with the procedure as laid down under the Act, it is not open to the management to challenge the decision of the said Authority. by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India-unless there is some glaring departure committed by the said authority in violation, of the provisions of the Act of 1958. I am of the view that this not a case which on ,face of it shows any glaring departure of the kind as stipulated under the Act of. 1958 which would justify interference by this Court with a variance, ,of the Authority. 14. As a result, of above discussion, I am consequently of the view. that once the Appellate Authority has decided a particular issue. before ,it with a final direction on merit reinstating, a workman in service and,,thereafter has also determined the question with regard to quantum on which the said employee should, be held entitled to the payment of back, wages for the period in dispute, i.e., 3/4th of total wages as admissible to him, for the period in dispute as in the instant case, it is not open for the Federation to challenge the same either on merits or on the question of quantum by way of instant ,-writ petition before this Court. Since; the question-,with regard to the exemption was not raised earlier by the Federation before the Appellate Authority, it is not open to him to agitate the same before this Court. perusal of the Notification. dated 25.8.88 which was modified by the subsequent Notification dated 6.7.90, shows that it is only the nationalised banks and the co-operative banks which are exempted from the purview of the Act of 1958 which obviously means that the Housing Society even though they may be dealing with the disbursement of loans in their day to day business activities would obviously.not exempt the said institution from the of the Act of 1958, unless there is a separate provision by virtue of a separate notification in this regard. This fact is fully borne out from the aforesaid notification which has been perused by this Court. 15. It is pertinent to mention before I part with this case that any dispute arising out of deductions from wages or delay in-,payment thereof including the penalty for malicious claims under Section 15 of the Act of 1936 decided by the said Authority are, appeal able by virtue of Section 17 of the said Act. 16. As a result of above discussion and also keeping in view the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties which have been elaborately dealt with by this Court and also the legal position on the subject, I am of the view that the writ petition does not survive any further on merits and it is accordingly . dismissed with.-no, order as to- costs. The o,Federation-petitioner is directed to pay 3/4th wages of the total wages i.e. a sum of Rs.61,522/- for the period in dispute i.e. from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement in service as assessed by the Payment of Wages Authority Act vide its order dated 29.1.94 .(Annexure-2) and Rs. 1000/- by way of, compensation to the respondent No.-1 Sultan Singh within, a period of 30 s days from the, date of submission of, the certified, copy of the order' of this court.Writ petition dismissed -Rs. 1000/- Ordered to be paid to respondent by way of compensation. *******