JAMAIT RAM PURASWANI Vs. H G SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises in the following circumstances. The respdt. No. 3 was employed in Puraswani Medical Stores on a monthly salary of Rs. 175/-. His salary was not paid to him since December 23, 1965 hence he moved an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Against Judgment of Prem Prakash J. in W. P. No. 690 of 1970, D/- 26-2-1976.) (for short the Act), claiming arrears of salary and compensation from the present appellants who according to the respdt. No. 3 were the proprietors of the said concern Puraswani Medical Stores. That application was resisted by the opp. parties on a variety of grounds. They pleaded inter alia that they were not the proprietors of the said concern, that the respondent was not entitled to seek redress under the Payment of Wages Act as the matter was governed by U. P. Dookan aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962 and that the claim was barred by time. They asserted that the said concern was owned by H. A. Puraswani. son of Assodamal Puraswani who was appellant No. 3 before us. The Prescribed Authority repelled all the contentions raised by the present appellants and allowed the claim of Respdt No. 3 to the tune of Rs. 723.32 together with an amount of Rupees 25/- as compensation and Rs. 40/- as costs of pleader's fee.

(2.) Aggrieved by that decision the present appellants filed an appeal under S. 17, Payment of Wages Act before the Distt. Judge, Faizabad. That appeal was, however, dismissed in default of the appellants by the learned Distt. Judge on 10-1-1970. An application was then moved for setting aside that order of dismissal. The learned Distt. Judge rejected that application by his order dated 26-3-1970. The present appellants then moved this Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. That petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 26-2-1976- This appeal is directed against that judgment and order of the learned single Judge.

(3.) For the appellants it was urged that the learned Distt. Judge had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default of the appellants. The submission was that the learned Distt. Judge should have decided the appeal on merits even when no one appeared before him on behalf of the present appellants at the time of the hearing of the appeal. This point is raised in paragraph No. 13 of the petition under Article 228 of the Constitution as also in ground. No. S therein.