This is a revision reporting that the order dated 23-11-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala and that of the Authority dated 25-11-1984, are wrong and improper and thus of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was proceeded against on the allegation of committing theft. He was dismissed, from service. Before that he was brought under suspension.
During suspension he was paid subsistence allowance. The dispute is that the suspension allowance paid to him was deficit. The respondent, therefore, made an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of deducted wages, which was accepted. According to the respondent, he was entitled to Rs. 16,440 but he was paid Rs. 11,176, only. The plea taken by the petitioner was that the petition was time-barred. The period for which short payment was made is splitted into two parts. First period is from 5-11-1974 to 8-12-1975 and the second is from 6-2-1976 to 5-4-1978. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since short payments were made, between 5-11-1974 and 8-12-1975 that for the second time from 6-2-1976 to 5-4-1978, the petition brought on 15-11-1983 being beyond the period of three years was time-barred. The argument has no force. The suspension is a continuing wrong if it is illegal. When a person is reinstated holding that the suspension was wrong grievance arises to him for claiming full or fraction of the wages for the said period. In the present case he was reinstated by way of mercy which means that the charges were proved and only the punishment was withdrawn. Since the suspension is a continuing wrong, the emoluments to which a person is entitled during the suspension and has not been paid to amounts to continuing wrong, therefore, in such cases no limitation starts. The right of the respondent to the subsistence allowance was not denied since he was paid Rs. 11,176. The mistake appears to be of calculation no period of limitation started. The petitioner did not deny the right of the respondent to the subsistence allowance. The mistake of calculation in cases where right is not denied, can be at any time corrected and if the correction is refused, the person concerned can have recourse to an appropriate forum. If compensation had been allowed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, it would not have been proper but this is not the case here. The order is for the actual difference between Rs. 16,440 the amount to which the respondent was entitled, and Rs. 11,176 which was admittedly paid to him.
3. So far as the entitlement of the respondent to the difference is concerned, the question has not been contested before me.
4. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed.
A.E./326/Lb.P.