' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 23rd January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant lodged against the deductions from his pay was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. The facts are that the appellant is employed in Steel Shop of Railway. He had been working as part-time salesman in Railways Cooperative Stores after having been given training in the job by the Bata Shoe Company. The goods of Bata Shoe Company were sold in the shop. Some misappropriations were found and the appellant made liable to pay Rs, 6,259.71. On the asking of the Secretary, the Railways started making deductions from the pay of the appellant at Rs 100 per month. The said action was challenged by the appellant in his petition under section 25-A. This is true that Railway has no concern with the Co-operative sales shop, but since deduction was made by the Railway from the pay of the appellant, the latter could come to the Labour Court only.
Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that jurisdiction of the Court is barred under section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act. This argument has no force. No order of the Secretary has been challenged. The act of Railway in making deductions has been challenged. No consent of the appellant is on the record which may have authorised the Railways to make deductions. The so-called embezzlement has admittedly to concern with the Railway. No provision of law has been shown under which Railway can, on the asking of the Secretary or other officer of the Society, make deductions from the pay of its employees of any embezzled money. Rule 37 of the Rules and Bye-laws of the N.W.R. Employees Co-operative Stores provides that the sales shall be for cash only; or by deductions from salaries in the case of N. W. R. Employees if this is authorised by Railway Administration. Needless to say that purchases are made against receipts, so deductions on the basis of receipts may be made but unless there is consent of the employee concerned, an embezzled amount which in all cases is disputed, cannot be recovered by deductions from pay. So, rule 37 is not helpful to the respondent. Anyhow we have gone too far. At present the question is if the Labour Court had jurisdiction Since the Railway made deductions, only the Labour Court had jurisdiction and the learned lower Court wrongly held that it had no jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent after arguments hurriedly put in an application for additional evidence. Needless to say that at the appellate stage only that evidence can be allowed which the Court requires for the just and correct decision of the appeal. The documents sought to be produced in evidence at this stage is the membership of the appellant in the Society. This document is absolutely irrelevant for the decision of the appeal since the point to be decided is whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction. Most probably in order to prove the connection of the appellant with the Society membership record is sought to be produced. Connection of appellant with a Society is admitted since it is not denied that the appellant worked as a salesman at the shop. So, the petition for additional evidence is highly misconceived.
4. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the lower Court, hold that the reasons given by the lower Court do not warrant the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction. The case is remanded for decision of the petition on merits and other points, if any, involved in the case.