NEELAM KUMARI Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.9.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 (VIth Additional District Judge. Bareilly) acting as appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936. (hereinafter for short, "the Act"), allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 for admission of the additional evidence at the appellate stage.

(3.) Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition. In brief, are that the petitioner who was working as an Office Assistant with the respondent No. 2. filed an application under Section 15 of the Act claiming wages from 1.5.1990 to 31.8.1990. Application filed by the petitioner was opposed by the respondent No. 2. Parties produced evidence In support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority under the Act. after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the application by tts Judgment and order dated 30.3.1995 and awarded Rs. 6,128.00 as arrears of wages and Rs. 6,128.00 as damages in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Act. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act. During the pendency of the said appeal, an application was also filed by the said respondent which was numbered as 22Ga for admission of additional evidence. By means of the said application the respondent No. 2 wanted to file the statements of the petitioner which were not available at the time when the case was pending before the Prescribed Authority. Application filed by the respondent No. 2 was opposed by the petitioner contending that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The appellate authority relying upon a decision in the B.C.O., Northern Railway v. Regional Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, 1965 LLJ 78. allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 24.9.1999. Hence, the present petition.