This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.5547 and 5548 of 1990 as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The petitioner has assailed the legality of the orders, dated 31-3-1990 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, (respondent No.1) and the order, dated 25-10-1989 passed by the Labour Court No.VII (respondent No.2).
3. The petitioner's learned counsel has urged that both the Courts below have approached the matter from a wrong angle by treating it as a matter relating, to deduction of wages instead of refixation of pay. He explains that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act could only deal with cases pertaining to deduction of wages or delayed wages but had no jurisdiction to deal with a matter relating to refixation of pay or the disputed wages.
4. On the other hand the respondents' learned counsel (who has entered appearance in the stay matter) has urged that the pay of respondent No.2 was rightly fixed and wages were paid to him accordingly till the date of his retirement i.e. 7-5-1981. Thereafter, the departmental authority illegally passed the order dated 16-3-1982 and thereby arbitrarily reduced the respondents' wages with a direction that the excess payment be recovered from him. He submits that it is a clear case of arbitrary and illegal deduction of wages though an attempt has been made to give it a colour of refixation of wages. He adds that the respondents had the jurisdiction to decide the matter and had rightly passed the impugned orders after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. He also points out that the alleged order for refixation of the wages was passed in the absence of the petitioner and was a nullity in the eye of law. Therefore, a writ petition should not be entertained at this stage which will practically help the petitioner to enforce an order which on the face of it is arbitrary and nullity in the eye of law.
5. Admittedly respondent No.2 retired as a plaintiff and was drawing monthly wages of Rs.482 with effect from 1-12-1980 as is evident from entries in the statement of increments (Exh.P.1-9). As a driver he was entitled to get pay in R.N.P.S.-8(370-16-514/18-640), his wages with increments were duly shown in the personal service book of respondent No.2. The petitioner's learned counsel has not been able to show that the said entries are fictitious or erroneous in any manner. Even the orders, dated 18-1-1981, 24-2-1981 and 16-3-1982, do not show as to how the pay already fixed and drawn was erroneous. The said orders were passed unilaterally without affording any opportunity of being heard to respondent No.2.
6. The argument that the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to deal with cases pertaining to deduction of wages and delay in payment of wages under the provisions of section 15(2) of the Act, is correct. But I do not agree with the argument of the petitioner's learned counsel that the present case does not involve deduction of wages. Under section 7 of the Act it has been provided that the wages of employed person shall be paid to him without "deduction of any kind" except those authorised by or under this Act. The said deductions are specified under section 7(2) which are permissible deductions. However, a host of other deductions have not been included therein. If in any case deduction from wages is made which does not fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 7 of the Act, the same shall be illegal deduction, clearly falling within the purview of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Act which covers cases of deductions made contrary to the provisions of the' Act. The word "Deduction" has not been defined in the Act, although permissible deductions have been specified. In subsection (1) of section 7 of the Act the word "Deduction" has been used in the ordinary sense which means the act of deducing, reduction or subtraction. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary it means "subtraction", "the amount deducted" and according to Webster's New Dictionary "Deduction" means; "the act of deducting"; "an amount deducted". Thus, in essence, "deduction" in the context of section 7 means "subtraction" or reduction of wages". In some cases, on refixation of wages, the remunerations payable to the employees may be increased. In such cases the Authority, obviously, will have no jurisdiction. However, if the wages are reduced then definitely a certain amount has to be deducted from the wages of the employee. Such cases may be brought before the Authority by an aggrieved employee on the ground that illegal deduction has been made from his wages in violation of the provisions of section 7(2) of the Act. Even if it is assumed that the authority had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the orders passed by the authority and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal are void, still I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders because it will have the effect of protecting the illegal orders for refixation of wages of respondent No.2 and thereby causing great financial embarrassment to him in this old age.
7. For the foregoing discussion, do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.