Limitation for wage deduction claims runs from the actual deduction date, while invalid dismissal cannot justify withholding refund.

Limitation under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act runs from the date the wage deduction is actually made, not merely from the date wages would otherwise have accrued; on that basis, the employee's application was within time. Wages for the period of inactive service could not be withheld under rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code or section 7(2)(h) where dismissal had already been declared invalid and reinstatement followed, so refund of the deducted amount was maintainable. The separate claim for running allowance failed on merits because it was not shown to form part of substantive wages for the whole period and the procedural amendment was not pursued in time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the employee's application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was barred by limitation; (ii) whether wages for the period of inactive service could be refused refund on the basis of rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code and section 7(2)(h) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; and (iii) whether the claim for running allowance was rightly rejected.

Issue (i): whether the employee's application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The proviso to section 15(2) treats deduction from wages and delay in payment of wages as distinct concepts and prescribes different starting points for limitation. The claim in the present case arose not from wages merely falling due, but from the later decision treating the entire period of inactive service as leave due without pay, so the relevant date for limitation was the date of deduction, not the original dismissal date or the date when wages would otherwise have accrued.

Conclusion: The application was within time and the finding of limitation against the employee was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether wages for the period of inactive service could be refused refund on the basis of rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code and section 7(2)(h) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

Analysis: The rule enabling the employer to regulate pay after reinstatement did not apply where the dismissal had been declared invalid by a civil court and reinstatement followed on that basis. In such a situation, the deduction of wages for the period of inactive service could not be upheld under the cited rule, and the statutory bar invoked by the employer did not defeat the employee's refund claim.

Conclusion: The deduction for the period of inactive service was not protected, and the refund direction in favour of the employee was maintainable.

Issue (iii): whether the claim for running allowance was rightly rejected.

Analysis: Running allowance was not shown to be part of substantive wages for the whole period of inactive service. The relevant railway rules made its inclusion in average pay conditional and limited, and the employee had also failed to carry out the proposed amendment to his claim within the time allowed. The claim was therefore not established on merits.

Conclusion: The rejection of the running allowance claim was correct.

Final Conclusion: The employee succeeded on the principal wage-deduction issue, the contrary view on limitation was overturned, and the order dismissing his claim was set aside in favour of restoration of the relief granted by the prescribed authority.

Ratio Decidendi: For a claim under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, limitation for deduction of wages runs from the date on which the deduction is actually made, and not merely from the date on which wages would otherwise have accrued or fallen due.

---