Mode of recovering the claim: Sub-section (5)

Mode of recovering the claim: Sub-section (5)

Undoubtedly, the Employer is bound to honour the order of ~ the Authority. However, for any reason whatsoever, if the Employer fails and neglects to pay the claim ordered by the Authority then sub-section (5) lays d own that it may be recovered as ‘Fine’ imposed by the magistrate in a Criminal trial. It may be pointed out that normally, in other Land Revenue Code which is also coercive method of recovery. But the recovery of fines imposed by Magistrate is rather more coercive than the arrear of land revenue and this mode is prescribed for the Employer not responding to the orders of the Authority under the Act.
(i) Jurisdiction Generally: The right to payment during suspension during departmental inquiry is called as subsistence allowance. Such payment does not “amount to deduction much- less the “illegal deduction” under the Act State of Maharashtra v/s Devidas Phulsunghe, 1975 Mah.L 74.
A clerk in the employment of MSRTC while issuing instructions to the running staff wrongly mentioned the time at which 1 vehicle was made available. Drivers and Conductors accordingly reported for duty. They were therefore required to pay overtime wages. The management recovered the amount from the clerk.
The court held that such deductions are not permissible because deductions are permissible only if an employee has to render the account to the Employer in respect of some money and the loss is due to negligence or default of employee. As such, the Court directed the management to pay back the amount so deducted. MSRTC vIs Uttam Gangaram, 1981 Mah, L.J. 191.
Merely because the order of condoning delay was passed as preliminary issue, that would not take the case outside the purview of Section 15(2) of the Act. The section itself is clear and there is no ambiguity on that aspect. The petitioner was wrongfully advised to file a revision petition before the District judge. The said authority thus rightly rejected the same. Chhetriya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vIs I Add Judge, 1992 II CLR 940.