' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1639 of 1982 and 975 of 1983 having arisen out of the following facts:--
2. Sardar Ali, petitioner, in Writ Petition No,1639 of 1982 was employed in the Railways and he made an application to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for recovery of deducted wages to the tune of Rs, 6,045 alongwith ten times compensation. The claim was resisted by the Railways by raising legal and factual pleas. Arising out of the rival contentions, the Authority framed number of issues. Vide its order dated 25-5-1980, it concluded that the petition before it was not competent as it was not a case of deduction of wages but fixation of salary. The petitioner appealed and the Appellate Court set aside the finding on Issue No,2 and remanded the case for decision on merits. This time the Authority, vide its judgment dated 23-5-1981, allowed the claim of the petitioner with two times compensation. This decision was challenged in appeal by Railways in the Appellate Court who, vide judgment dated 3-1-1982, partially accepted the appeal inasmuch as it disallowed the two times compensation. In Writ Petition No,975 of 1983 it is the Railways, which challenges the above decision, while in the other petition, the petitioner prays that even though he has retired, a direction be issued "to re-fix the pay of the petitioner after 1-4-1978 allowing him further initial increments and revise his rate of pension and other retirement benefits with effect from his date of retirement corresponding to his emoluments as emerging in the changed circumstances. The respondent may kindly also be directed to allow to the petitioner the arrears of pay, pension and other benefits as due to him".
3. Learned counsel for Railways has argued that this being a case of fixation of salary, the Authority has no jurisdiction because at no stage, deduction was made from the salary of the petitioner. On merits, it is contended that the salary has been correctly fixed and paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee has raised the objection of laches and mala fides in the writ petition brought by Railways. It is urged that the Railways filed the writ petition after more than one year and only as a counter-blast to the petitioner's petition.' It is also urged that the question of jurisdiction cannot now be urged as the Railways did not challenge the orders remanding the case to the Authority.
4. As noted, initially the Authority rejected the claim on 25-5-1980 holding that petition under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was not competent. This order was set aside by the Appellate Court and the case was remanded. The order of Appellate Court was never challenged. It has A thus, attained finality and cannot now be permitted to be questioned. If the Railways so wanted, it ought to have challenged the said order directly either by way of revision before Labour Appellate Tribunal or through Constitutional petition in this Court, before participating in the remand proceedings.
5. The perusal of the judgment dated 3-1-1982 shows that the Railways at no stage led any evidence to disprove the assertion made by the petitioner/employee. In the circumstances, the conclusion drawA by the Authority as well as the Appellate Court seems to be correct. In any case, there is no material to displace the conclusion of fact arrived at concurrently. It has also been urged that the claim of the employee, was barred by time and no good reason has been given by the Authority for condoning the same. This aspect has been dealt with by the Appellate Court and it has rightly concluded that the Authority has condoned the delay, the Appellate Court would not like to interfere in exercise of the discretion. However, on this basis, it set aside the award of two times compensation. One may like to have a different view of this conclusion but, as the conclusion could have been arrived at by the Appellate Count, I would not like to interfere on this score. In any case, it may also be noticed that claim of the employee for correct fixation of pay was finally rejected in 1977. The petition filed in 1978 could not be stated to be barred by time.
6. There is another aspect of the case. The employee was retired in 1980, 20 years ago. It was stated at the Bar that he has already received the amount awarded under the impugned orders It will not foster the ends of justice to take away the small monetary benefit from a petty employee after 20 years This alone suffices to deny exercise of writ jurisdiction even if it be concluded that the impugned orders are illegal.
7. Writ Petition No,975 of 1983 is dismissed.
8. The other Writ Petition No,1639 of 1982 has also to be rejected by this Court in view of section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 added on 10-6-1997. Petitioner-employee can only agitate the question of fixation of pay and consequential benefits in pension, etc. Before the Service Tribunal.
The amendment has been held to be retrospective by the Supreme Court and it will apply to pending cases.
9. Resultantly, Writ Petition No,1639 of 1982 is disposed of leaving the petitioner to avail of the remedy before the Service Tribunal in accordance with law. If the petitioner files an appeal in the Tribunal, the question of exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 will have to be considered by the learned Tribunal in the light of directions/observations of the Supreme Court in number of similar cases.
10. Both the above petitions stand decided in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.