General Manager, Northern Railway and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed by the General Manager, Northern Railway and Union of India for quashing the award passed by the Labour Court in applications Nos. 312-C of 1978 dated November 30, 1979.

Respondents Nos. 3 to 88 who were working as B Grade Railway Guards of Northern Railway at Ludhiana at the relevant time filed applications under Sections 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming the recovery of certain amounts deducted from their wages on the ground that they were not entitled to the same due to the cancellation of trains due to Indo-Pak conflict, conservation of coal due to shortage and threatened strike of railway staff etc. According to respondents Nos. 3 to 88, the said deduction which were made from their wages were illegal and, therefore, they were entitled to be paid back the said wages which were wrongfully deducted from their wages.

It is not disputed that respondents Nos. 3 to 88 were entitled to mileage allowance under the relevant rules, namely, Running Allowance. Rules. Though certain trains were cancelled, the petitioner were admittedly reporting for duty and were kept for waiting in their duty. When the petitioners attended the duty and were kept waiting to attend the duty, they were entitled to the waiting mileage allowance under the existing rules. The cancellation of trains for whatever reasons, would not disentitle them to the waiting mileage allowance as the petitioners were admittedly reporting for duty and made to wait to attend their duties. Therefore, the amount paid to them was legal and no deduction could be made from the wages subsequently on the ground that some trains were cancelled due to some extraneous factors. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court rightly held that respondents Nos. 3 to 88 were entitled to the waiting mileage allowance and that the deductions from their wages of the amounts already paid to them was not legal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 33(c)(2) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case and it can be applied only when the amount is ascertainable and when there is no dispute with regard to the of claim of respondents Nos. 3 to 88. I am unable to accept this contention. The amount relating to waiting mileage allowance was admittedly paid to respondents Nos. 3 to 88. Subsequently, the department sought to recover the said amount on the ground that certain trains were cancelled and respondents Nos. 3 to 88 did not actually perform this duty. But the fact remains that respondents Nos. 3 to 88 reported for duty and they were kept waiting to attend their duty. If that be the case, respondents Nos. 3 to 88 are certainly entitled to the waiting mileage allowance. The amount is ascertainable in this case. When the ascertained amount sought to be recovered was deducted from their wages for the subsequent period respondent Nos. 3 to 88 approached the Labour Court. In fact, the amount deducted from respondents Nos. 3 to 88 was not disputed either before the Labour court on before this Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount was not ascertainable and, therefore, Section 33(c)(2) of the Act is not applicable. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to wrongful deductions made from the wages of respondents Nos. 3 to 88. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Labour Court. Further, the amount as ordered by the Labour Court was paid to respondents Nos. 3 to 88 in accordance with the order of the Labour Court and there was no stay of the order of the Labour Court. It would be unjust to direct respondents Nos. 3 to 88 to refund the amount which has already been paid to them about fifteen years back. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.