https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175566 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. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:58:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175566 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175566