SATISHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI AGARWALPROP SWAYEKA EXPORTS Vs. MANISHKUMAR KARSANBHAI RASHTRIYA SANGHARSH LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in restoration application being Misc. Civil Application No.144 of 2001 filed in Payment of Wages Application No.224 of 2000. The grievance ventilated in this Special Civil Application is that the learned Judge of the Labour Court committed an error in awarding cost of Rs.10,000.00, while allowing the aforesaid Misc. Civil Application for restoration of the main Payment of Wages Application.

(2.) It will be necessary to note that one Manishkumar Karsanbhai filed Payment of Wages Application No.224 of 2000 against the petitioner. Said application was filed in the year 2000 and the authority under Payment of Wages Act, Ahmedabad has recorded in para 3 of the judgement and order dated 7.4.2001 that notice issued by the authority to the respondent therein was served and in response to that, the learned advocate Mr.S.K. Malkan has filed Vakalatnama at exh.12. Para 4 says that the respondent therein did not file any reply and therefore, his right to file reply was closed. It is further stated that the deposition of the applicant was recorded at exh.14, but as the respondent was not present for cross examination his right to cross examination was closed. Even thereafter the respondent did not remain present. Therefore, the authority was left with no alternative but to close his right of leading evidence or examining any witness. The Court allowed that application and ordered the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.71,048.80 paise and penalty at 10% of the above sum with interest at the rate of 18% till the date of payment of the aforesaid amount with cost of Rs.2,500.00. This order was passed on 7.4.2001, in an application of the year 2000. Thereafter, restoration application being Misc. Civil Application No.144 of 2001 was filed which was allowed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. By setting aside the ex parte order, the Court awarded a cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the workman and fixed further hearing of the main application on 27.11.2001. The order under challenge was passed on 6.10.2001. Taking into consideration the amount awarded, i.e. Rs.71,048.80 awarded in a Payment of Wages Application and for the delay in payment of the same of two years the learned Judge ordered for cost of Rs.10,000.00.

(3.) By any standard the amount of cost is not exorbitant. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge is at par with the Civil Judge (Junior Division), when he is in his first five years of service. When he crosses five years of service upto 10 years, he is at par with Civil Judge (Senior Division). The learned advocate also argued that taking parity on criminal side, the learned Judge of Labour Court is equivalent to Judicial Magistrate (First Class). He submitted that the learned Labour Judge is also clothed with the powers under sec.193 to 228 of Indian Penal Code and that is one of the reasons to draw parity between the learned Judge of the Labour Court and the JMFC.