1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This judgment will dispose of three Civil Appeals Nos. K-33, K-34 and K-35 of 1970, in which common question of law arises. These have arisen in the following circumstances :- in Civil Appeal No. K-34 of 1970, the respondent is a Special Ticket Examiner, who was transferred from Hyderabad to Tando Adam in the year 1960. He was also asked to vacate the railway quarter occupied by him at Hyderabad but he failed to do so.
2. On the refusal of the respondents to vacate the quarters, the appellant --Railway started deducting the rent from their pay as per Rent Rules framed by the Railway Department. Tire respondents challenged the deductions and made an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The application made in Civil Appeal No. K-33 of 1970, was dismissed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, by order dated the 11th March 1961. In Civil Appeals Nos. K-34 and K-35 of 1970, the respondents made an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act which was allowed by the Authority by order dated the 31st January 1962. The deductions were held to be illegal and the appellant was directed to refund the amount realised from the respondents.
3. The respondents, in Civil Appeal No. K-33 of 1970, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Karachi, against the order dismissing their applica--petition. The appeal was allowed by order dated the 30th May 1961. The Railway, in Civil Appeals Nos. K-34 and K-35 of 1970, filed appeal against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act but the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was upheld by order dated the 30th January 1963.
4. The Railway challenged the orders of the District Judge, Karachi, in revision petitions. In this connection, three revision petitions were filed. The Revision Application No. 417 of 1961 was directed against the order of the District Judge, Karachi. The other two Revision Petitions Nos. 295 and 296 of 1963 were filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad These three revision petitions were considered by the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench and were dismissed by a common judgment dated the 2nd September 1960.
5. Special leave to appeal was granted against the said judgment on the 14th March 1967, for determination of the question whether certain Rules framed by the General Manager. Pakistan Western Railway, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 157 of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, are repugnant to the provisions of sections 7 and 11 of the Payment of Wages Act.
6. Mr. Usman-e-Ghani, learned Assistant Advocate-General, has contended that the deductions were legitimately made by a competent authority under rule 8 of Rent Rules for railway employees and could not be called in question before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. He also contended that the Rules framed under para. 157 of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code were not repugnant to sections 7 and 11 of the Payment of Wages Act. So far as the first argument is concerned, section 7 (t) is very clear. It reads as under :- "Section 7 (1).-Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of section 47 of the Railways Act, 1890, the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorised by or under this Act.
7. Explanation.-Every payment made by the employed person to the employer or his agent shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a deduction from wages."
8. It is quite clear that the wages of the employed person shall not be deducted except in the manner authorised by the Act. In view of this, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was competent to enter into the merits of the case.
9. Before going into the merits of the case, it will be proper to mention that the case of the Railway before the High Court was that the General Manager of P. W. R. Was empowered under para. 157 of the Pakistan Railway Estab--lishment Code to frame Rules. Under clause (2) of the Rules framed by the General Manager, the assessm ent of rent was provided for and it was under this clause that the respondents had been paying Rs. 3 to Rs. 4 per month as rent. Under clause 8, a different rate was provided for un--authorised occupation of railway quarters. Under this clause, class III staff could be charged at the rate of Rs. 10 per day if the stay of member of the staff was declared as unauthorised. The proviso to clause 8 provided that such deduction made from an employee during any one month will not exceed half the emoluments. It was on this basis that it was urged that the deductions of half of the emoluments of the respondents upon their failure to vacate the quarters after their transfer from their stations was justified.
10. This aspect of the case was considered by the High Court and was repelled. It was pointed out that though sub-clause (d) of subsection (2) of] section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act allowed the deductions for house-1 accommodation supplied by the employer, section 11 provided that such deduction shall not exceed the amount equivalent to the value of the house accommodation. It was held that the value of the house-accommodation in the case of the respondents was Rs. 3 to Rs. 4 per month which they were paying. Irrespective of the fact whether they had been transferred and had been required to vacate the premises, the value of accommodation would not increase merely because the respondents were in an unauthorised occupation. It was further held that under section 7 notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of section 47 of the Railways Act, the wages of an employee shall be paid to him without deduction of any kind except those authorised under the Act.
11. Mr. Usman-e-Ghani contended that the deductions in the present case have been made under clause (h) which reads as under :- "Deductions required to be made by order of a Court or other authority competent to make such order."
12. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contended that the Divisional Superintendent is an authority competent to make an order for the deduction made from the salary of an employee and, therefore, this clause applies. This contention has received our anxious consideration but we are unable to accept it. Under clause 2 (d) of section 7 which is reproduced below, deduction from the wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act :- "Deductions from the wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds only, namely :- (a)
13. (b)
14. (C)
(d) deductions for house-accommodation supplied by the employer."
15. Section 11 of the Payment of Wages Act reads as under :- "A deduction under clause (d) or clause (e) of subsection (2) of section 7 shall not be made from the wages of an employed person unless the house-accommodation, amenity or service has been accepted by him, as a term of employment or otherwise, and such deduction shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the value of the house --accommodation, amenity or service supplied and, in the case of a deduction under the said clause (e), shall be subject to such conditions as the Provincial Government impose."
16. A bare reading of section 11 would show that the limit of the amount of deduction would be one what has been provided in it. We agree with the High Court that so far as the deduction of house- accommodation is con--cerned, there is a specific clause (d) and it is not permissible to fall back upon another clause viz. Clause (h) for the purposes of house-accommodation. We also agree with the observation of the High Court that with reference to clause (d) if an employee's occupation of a house-accommodation which was supplied to him has been declared unauthorised, that accommodation does not cease to be the one which was supplied by the employer and for that reason the case is not taken out from clause (d). In our opinion also the house-accommodation was the same and it had been supplied by the employer. If for some reason, the employer wants it back he may adopt other measures for that purpose and he cannot reasonably urge that an enhanced deduction which he makes for the said house-accommodation would be a deduction other than the one which falls under clause (d).
17. After carefully considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that the Railway authorities are C not entitled to deduct more amount than what has been provided in clause (d) of subsection (2) of section 7 and section 11 of the Payment of Wages Act. They are not entitled to rely on clause (h) for the purposes of enhanced charges. Their claim to do so is against the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. In view of this, the Rules framed by the Railway authorities under para. 157 of the Pakistan Railway Establishment Code are repugnant to the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, and the view of the subordinate Courts on this point appears to be correct. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere in the matter. The appeals are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.