' The private respondents Nos, 3 to 81 in this case fall within the ategory of Cabinmen, Shunting Jamadars, P. W. Mates and Furnacemen. They were drawing their pay in the scale of Rs, 85-2-115.
On the enforcement of National Pay Scales their category was placed in N. P. S. No, 3 under Schedule 1/2 at page 37 of the P. W. R. Gazette, dated 20th October, 1972. On the implementation of the above scheme the petitioner placed them in National Pay Scale No, 3 and allowed them 30% increase. As the adjustment adversely affected the respondents they made a representation claiming National Pay Scale No, 2 with 40% increase in their existing basic pay. It found favour with the petitioner who placed them in National Pay Scale No, 2 and allowed them 40% increase on their basic pay. Simultaneously the petitioner as a matter of grace, allegedly allowed them N. P. S.
3. The arrears are also said to have been paid on 16th September, 1976.
2. On 19th April 1976, the respondents made an application under section 15(2) to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act (respondent No, 2) (hereinafter called the Authority) and claimed compensation for the reason that the petitioner unlawfully deducted a part of their pay. The petitioner contested that application but the Authority disagreeing with the contention raised by the petitioner allowed the respondents three times compensation of the sum of Rs, 432 withheld in each case. An appeal of the petitioner partly succeeded before the Labour Court. The three times compensation was reduced to one time. Dissatisfied with that the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition alleging that a sum of Rs, 432 allowed to each of the respondents 3 to 81 is without lawful authority.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents, according to entry in the Schedule 1/2 and "The statement showing equivalence of consolidated scales with National Scales of Pay" at page 37 of the P. W. R. Gazette, dated 20th October, 1972, were to be placed in National Pay Scale No, 3 1. e. Rs, 120 -3-150/EB-5-180 and therefore, they could not claim as a matter of right 40% increase. He, however, admitted that on a representation made by the respondents the petitioner conceded their position and while allowing National Pay Scale No, 2 as well as 40% increase placed them in N. P. S. 3 for future. He also referred to section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act to say that withholding a part of the wages could not be called a deduction and was not covered by section 15(3) of the same Act to entitle a person to claim 10 times compensation. According to the learned counsel the nonpayment could at the worst be categorised 'delayed wages' and the respondents could be given Rs, 10 per head as compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the amount in question is not of the type permitted to be deducted under section 7 and, therefore, the deduction was unlawful.
He further submitted that as the respondents were entitled to get their pay fixed and as the same had subsequently been conceded the non-payment of the 10 times allowance would amount to deduction in the eye of law and would consequently make the petitioner liable for compensation.
5. The admitted position emerging from the facts of the case in that on a representation made, the petitioner conceded that the respondents were entitled to be equated with N. P. S. 2 and, therefore, allowed them 40 % increase of the existing basic pay. Consequently, their pay shall be deemed to have been fixed accordingly right from the date of the enforcement of the National Scales of Pay.
The petitioner, therefore, deprived the respondents of 10% amount which shall be considered to be a deduction in the eye of law. The term 'delayed wages' would cover it only if the wages had been rightly fixed but payment delayed.
6. I have also gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. I. P. Ltd. v. First Sind Labour Court, wherein, it appears that, their Lordships would have granted the relief in case the pay of the employees there had not been properly fixed. The relevant portion may be reproduced with advantage ' It is not denied that all the respondents opted for the new scales in the terms of the directive and their pays in the new scales were fixed accordingly. It is not the case of the respondents that the fixation of their pays according. To the directive has not been done properly. They can therefore have no grievance as regards the fixation of their pays in the National Pay Scale, and as a matter of fact they remained satisfied with it for a period of more than a year.
' It is therefore abundantly clear that there was no deduction of any kind from the pay of the respondents by the appellant. The respondents were therefore not entitled to any relief and as a matter of fact on that account they could not approach the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. . .
7. Taking support from the observations reproduced above, I hold that the non-fixation of correct pay in the beginning amounts to an unlawful deduction making the petitioner liable to compensation up to 10 times as provided in section 15(3). The compensation allowed by the Labour Court in this case is only one time i,e, Rs, 432 per head. I, therefore, do not find any illegality of a nature calling for interference by this Court. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.
As the petitioner is an employer and he led the respondents into the litigation, he shall also pay the costs. 1977 SCMR 4031 1