Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ... vs Amrik Singh And Anr on 17 March, 2025

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2025 01:42:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

RSA No.935 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 035691

the pay of the plain ﬀ to Virasat Security Service, which then disbursed the
same to the plain ﬀ and all such similar employees. Plain ﬀ came to know
from his principal employer that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had sent them, his
pay a!er deduc ng the amount from the pay levelling allega ons that
plain ﬀ had consumed excess diesel. No order of deduc on was ever passed
by defendant Nos.1 and 2. It was claimed that only the principal employer
could deduct the amount and impose any penalty. Not only this, as per PRTC
Rules, deduc on come in the deﬁni on of punishment and in case, any
punishment was to be imposed, proper procedure should have been
followed, but in this case, no such procedure was adopted.

2.2 Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the claim. They denied any
privity of contract between them and the plain ﬀ. They admi*ed that
plain ﬀ was the employee of defendant No.3 - Virasat Security Service,
Pa ala and that he was sent to them under a contract with defendant No.3.
These defendants jus ﬁed deduc on of the amount from the salary of the
plain ﬀ due to excess consump on of diesel in view of the le*ers issued by
the Director of PRTC dated 04.01.2011 and another le*er dated 28.02.2011,
as per which in case a driver comes with mileage of less than prescribed
parameter, then amount was to be deducted from his salary.

2.3 Defendant No.3 - Virasat Security Service, Pa ala also opposed
the claim on various grounds. According to it, no amount was deducted by
said defendant No.3 and rather, the same was deducted by defendant Nos.1
and 2, as per the rules and regula ons and so, it was not at fault.

2.4 Necessary issues were framed. A!er taking evidence produced
by the par es, trial Court decreed the suit by holding that plain ﬀ was
en tled for the recovery of the amount of deduc ons made from his salary
by defendant Nos.1 and 2 falling within three years prior to the ﬁling of the
suit, as per the limita on period. Defendants were accordingly directed to
release the said amount for the aforesaid period to the plain ﬀ vide
judgment dated 17.01.2017. The appeal as ﬁled by defendant Nos.1 and 2
(appellants herein) against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the First

Page 2 of 7
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2025 01:42:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

RSA No.935 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 035691

Appellate Court on 15.10.2019, with modiﬁca on to the extent as already
noted.

3. Assailing the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below by way of
present appeal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that it is
the defendant No.3, who was accountable to the plain ﬀ and not the
appellants, as the plain ﬀ was the employee of defendant No.3, as there was
not privity of contract between the plain ﬀ and defendants Nos.1 and 2 -
appellants; and as such, the suit should have been dismissed against them.

4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants and have perused the paper book.

5. Before considering the conten on raised by learned counsel for
the appellants in this appeal, it will be apt to reproduce the observa ons
made by the First Appellate Court in its judgment dated 15.10.2019:-

"18) Plain ﬀ in the suit under appeal had sought relief of mandatory
injunc on direc ng defendants to pay the amount deducted from his salary.
It is not disputed that plain ﬀ was employee of defendant No.3 i.e. Virasat
Pa ala. Virasat Pa ala further had a contract with defendants No.1 and 2
PRTC for providing them with drivers to ply their buses on the scheme of 8
KM. Plain ﬀ, who was allo*ed driver No.CBJKM174 was sent to defendants
in the month of October, 2006. The principle employer of plain ﬀ was
Virasat Pa ala and his salary also used to be sent by defendants No.1 and 2
to defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 used to disburse it to plain ﬀ. Privity
of contract was thus between defendants No.1 and 2 with defendant No.3
through agreement Ex.P1. There was no privity of contract between plain ﬀ
and defendants No.1 and 2, his employer being defendant No.3 . Defendant
No.3 was accountable to plain ﬀ for any deduc ons made from the salary of
plain ﬀ.

19) In the case under appeal, appellants/ defendants No. 1 and 2 had been
making deduc ons from the salary of the plain ﬀ relying upon the order dt.
4.1.2011 Ex.D1 and 28.2.2011 Ex.D2. Appellants through these orders
implemented from 1.3.2011 has imposed a criteria of deduc ons ﬁxing limit

Page 3 of 7
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2025 01:42:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

RSA No.935 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 035691

of fuel consumed. As per their orders, bus covers 4.5 KM in one liter of
diesel. Limit of 4.5 KM per liter is ﬁxed for the buses plying in the plain area
and 4.3 KM with regard to the buses plying in the hill area. It was also
ordered that in case any driver comes with lesser kilometer per liter than
ﬁxed, then 100% value of the ﬁxed kilometer per liter is to be recovered
from him but if driver comes with higher kilometer per liter than the ﬁxed
kilometer per liter, then he be given 50% of the excess diesel saved by him.

20) Vide order dated 28.2.2011 passed by Managing Director, PRTC, it was
ordered that a driver who comes with lesser kilometer per liter than 4.5 KM
per liter, then 100% of the diesel consump on be recovered from that driver
and if a driver comes with 4.50 to 4.70 KM per liter, then 50% value of the
required diesel be recovered from him. Deduc ons from the salary of
plain ﬀ are alleged to have been made as plain ﬀ used to come with lesser
kilometer per liter and presuming that he had been selling diesel and
causing loss to the PRTC, recovery was eﬀected.

21) DW1 Shinderpal has acknowledged that the order dated 4.1.2011 and
28.2.2011 were not conveyed to Virasat Security or any other employee and
Virasat Security had been paying the amount sent to them by PRTC for
disbursement to their employees. The deduc ons made by PRTC from the
salary of plain ﬀ stands depicted in document Ex.P2 and admi*edly, no
le*er qua the deduc ons was ever sent to plain ﬀ or Virasat Security. It has
not been disputed by this witness that the average consump on of fuel of
bus would vary in certain circumstances, it could be in the case of traﬃc jam,
or on the railway crossing and also with me and again star ng of the bus
and further the average reduced where the bus was old.

22) So, from the tes mony of own witness of defendant, it is evident that
criteria of making deduc ons from the salary of the drivers supplied by
defendant No.3 to defendant No.1 and 2 was not based on any ra onal
approach. Deduc ons from the salary of plain ﬀ had been made much prior
to 1.3.2011, when the said order Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were never implemented.
No jus ﬁca on is forthcoming on what basis the deduc ons were made
prior to 1.3.2011 and no opportunity of hearing was ever given to plain ﬀ
qua the deduc ons made from his salary pursuant to the implementa on of

Page 4 of 7
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2025 01:42:33 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

RSA No.935 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 035691

the order dated 1.3.2011. Hence, the deduc ons which had been made by
defendants No.1 and 2 were not based on any sound reasoning. The order of
deduc on from the salary of plain ﬀ is thus without any basis.

23) The ld. Trial court had rightly decreed the suit of plain ﬀ for recovery of
the amount of deduc ons made from his salary by defendants no.1 and 2
falling within 3 years prior to the ﬁling of suit by plain ﬀ. The ld. Lower court
had decreed the suit of plain ﬀ against the defendants i.e. the appellants
and respondent No.2 Virasat Security. However, the ld. lower court erred in

decreeing the suit of plain ﬀ against appellants/ defendants No.1. and 2 when there was no privity of contract between plain ﬀ and the appellants. Plain ﬀ was employed by defendant No.3/ respondent No.2 and it was respondent No.2 who was duty bound to pay the full salary to plain ﬀ. This court is however, conscious of the fact that the deduc ons were made by defendants No.1 and 2, who never in mated the orders, pursuant to which deduc ons were made from the salary of plain ﬀ to plain ﬀ or defendant NO.3/ respondent No.2. So, defendant No.3 is virtually liable to pay the deducted salary to plain ﬀ though having right to recover the same from defendants No.1 and 2.

24) In the light of above said discussion, appeal of the appellants accordingly stands accepted. Suit of the plain ﬀ is partly decreed with costs that defendant No.3 is liable to release the amount of deduc ons made from the salary of plain ﬀ by defendants No.1 and 2 falling within 3 years prior to the ﬁling of suit by plain ﬀ within a period of 2 months from the date of order. Defendant No.3 shall however be en tled to recover the amount of the deduc ons paid by them to plain ﬀ from defendants no.1 and 2. Decree be prepared. Appeal of the appellants stand dismissed. Decree be prepared."

6. The above-said observa ons make it clear that though there was no privity of contract between plain ﬀ and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that it is defendant No.3, which is accountable to the plain ﬀ for any deduc on, but at the same me, it is not in dispute that defendant No.3 had sent the plain ﬀ to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to ply their bus under a par cular scheme. It has further been found that appellants - defendants Nos.1 and 2 had been making deduc on from the salary of the plain ﬀ by relying upon orders

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

RSA No.935 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 035691

dated 04.01.2011 and 28.02.2011 (Exs. D1 and D2 respec vely) ﬁxing some criteria for deduc on on basis of fuel consumed. It has been admi*ed by the own witness of the defendants that the aforesaid orders Exs.D1 and D2 were never conveyed either to the plain ﬀ or other such employees or even to their employer, i.e. Virasat Security Service - defendant No.3. So much so, a!er making deduc ons by the appellants from the salary of the plain ﬀ as depicted in the document Ex.P2, no le*er qua the said deduc on was ever sent either to the plain ﬀ or defendant No.3 - Virasat Security Service, Pa ala. It is also not disputed by this witness that average consump on of fuel of a bus would vary in certain circumstances, inasmuch as it would be in case of traﬃc jams or railway crossing and also with me and star ng of the bus and further the average reduced if the bus was old.

7. On the basis of above evidence, the Courts below have rightly held that deduc ons made from the salary of the plain ﬀ was not based on any ra onal approach, in as much as the le*ers Ex.D1 and D2 were never brought to the no ce of the plain ﬀ or his employer. No jus ﬁca on was put forth to make the deduc ons even prior to 01.03.2011, inasmuch as the deduc on were being made ever since 2006.

8. In these circumstances, this Court ﬁnds that no illegality has been commi*ed by the courts below in decreeing the suit. Ld. First Appellate Court has rightly modiﬁed the decree to some extent, inasmuch as defendant No.3 has been held liable to release the amount of deduc ons made from the salary of the plain ﬀ by defendant Nos.1 and 2 falling within three years prior to ﬁling of the suit by the plain ﬀ within a period of two months from the date of order; though defendant No.3, i.e. Virasat Security Service, Pa ala was held en tled to recover the said amount of deduc on paid by them to plain ﬀ from defendant Nos.1 and 2. Interes ngly, defendant No.3 - Virasat Security Service, Pa ala, which has been held primarily liable to make the payment, has not ﬁled any appeal.

9. In view of above discussions, this Court does not ﬁnd any reason to interfere in the well-reasoned judgments passed by the Courts below.



                                   6 of 7

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035691

RSA No.935 of 2022 (O&M)                                    2025:PHHC: 035691

There is no scope for any interference, as there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in apprecia on of evidence on record. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.

March 17, 2025                                                 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita                                                             JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned?            Yes/No
             Whether reportable?                   Yes/No





                                    7 of 7