GENERAL MANAGER ENGG HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PATANCHERU MEDAK DISTRICT Vs. B MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed as against an order made in LA.No.84/ 96 in I.A.No. 1477/92 in C.M.A.S.R. No.6804/92 dated 13-2-1997 by the learned District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dismissing the said I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The revision petitioner is the General Manager (Engg.), Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Severage Board, Operation and Maintenance, Patancheru, Medak District.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed an appeal C.M.A.S.R. No.6804/92 on the file of District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, aggrieved by an order made under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour- Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Patancheru, Medak in PW5/92 along with IA. No.1477/92 to condone the delay of 126 days in preferring the said appeal. The application LA. No. 1477/92 was dismissed as there was no representation on 31-8-1995 and the revision petitioner- appellant filed an application to restore I.A.No. 1477/92 along with an application I.A.No.84/96 to condone delay of 123 days in filing the application for restoration of I.A.No. 1477/92. It was averred in the affidavit that their advocate had not rspresented the matter on 31-8-1995 before the Court when the matter was called and all along they were under the impression that the advocate on record had been defending the interest of the revision petitioner-appellant effectively and when the revision petitioner-appellant had deputed another advocate to ascertain the progress of the matter, it was reported that the petition was dismissed for default on 31-8-1995 and in the said process there was delay of 123 days in filing the application for restoration and hence a request was made to allow the said application and to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner-appellant. The 1st respondent herein had filed a counter denying the submissions made in the affidavit in support of the application and had taken a stand that for the proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 itself is not applicable and apart from it, the revision petitioner- appellant and their Counsel had been regularly absent for more than one year and ultimately it was dismissed for default and there are no valid grounds to restore the same. The Court below after recording certain reasons in paragraph 4 of the impugned order had arrived at the conclusion that no useful purpose will be served to restore the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 since the same is not applicable and further observed that there is no bonafide ground to condone delay of 123 days in the facts and circumstances of the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "Code" in short for the purpose of convenience.

(3.) The facts in nutshell are that the 1st respondent had filed PW 5/92 on the file of Assistant Commissioner of Labour-Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Patancheru, Medak District, shown as 2nd respondent in the present civil revision petition, claiming difference of wages. It is no doubt true that certain contentions had been advanced whether the difference of wages and the deduction of wages under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, hereinafter in short called as "Act" for the purpose of convenience, will be one and the same or they are different. This is a matter touching the merits of the matter. Inasmuch as the said PW 5/92 was allowed by the 2nd respondent and aggrieved by the same C.M.A.S.R. No.6804/92 was filed along with an application to condone delay (LA. No.1477/92) and as already stated supra the same was dismissed for default and to restore the said application an application to condone delay of 123 days (I.A.No.84/96) was filed, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 13-2-1997, and aggrieved by the said order the present civil revision petition had been preferred.