CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. LABOUR OFFICER AND ENQUIRY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have assailed the orders passed by the Court of 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Koppal (for short "the Appellate Authority") under Sec. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short "the Act of 1936"), dtd. 29/7/2020 in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.8/2016, 9/2016 & 10/2016. Since the question involved in these three writ petitions are similar, the writ petitions are heard together with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and disposed off by this common order.

(2.) Respondent No.2 in these writ petitions had filed petition under Ss. 15(2) & 16 of the Act of 1936 before respondent No.1 contending that the Members of respondent No.2 - Association have been working as daily wage labourers under the petitioners for the last two decades and the petitioners herein have not paid them wages for the months of November-2011, December-2011 & January-2012 at the scheduled rates, in spite of the repeated request made to them. Respondent No.1 had passed an order dtd. 14/12/2022 directing the petitioners to pay the alleged arrears of wages. Being aggrieved by the said order dtd. 14/12/2022, the petitioners herein had preferred three separate appeals under Sec. 17 of the Act of 1936 before the Appellate Authority, which were numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.8/2016, 9/2016 & 10/2016. In the said appeals, the petitioners had raised a contention that the prescribed wages were paid by the petitioners to the Contractor, who in turn had paid the same to the workers. The petitioners had filed I.A. Nos.V & VII under Order XVI Rule 27 of the CPC with the prayer to permit them to produce additional documents / evidence. The said applications were taken up for consideration by the Appellate Authority along with the main matter. The Appellate Authority, vide the judgment and order impugned has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who has reiterated the grounds, urged in these writ petitions in support of the prayers made by the petitioners, further contends that the Appellate Authority having allowed I.A. Nos.V & VII filed by the petitioners ought to have granted an opportunity of leading oral evidence to prove the documents, which were produced along with I.A. Nos.V & VII. He submits that though the petitioners have produced necessary documents to show that the Contractor, who was paid the wages had in turn paid the same to the workers, the Appellate Authority had failed to appreciate the same and on the other hand, the Appellate Authority had proceeded to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the petitioners are at liberty to recover the amount from the Contractor.