DURG TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was working as Supervisor with the petitioner Company. His service was terminated. He filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court by order dated May 7, 1991 set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement of Respondent No. 3 with back-wages. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of Labour Court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the employee filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming enhanced salary, which according to the employee was revised by the employer for the period January 1, 1992 to August 31, 1992. The authority exercising the power under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act rejected the application of the employee holding that the employee could not prove that the wage was increased from Rs. 572 to Rs. 832/ -.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the employee preferred appeal and by order dated March 11, 1995 the Appellate Court found that the salary of the Supervisor was revised from Rs. 572 to Rs. 832/- and consequently direction for payment of Rs. 2080/-has been made. It is this order of the Appellate Authority which is being impugned in the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Rawat, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court reversed the finding of the original authority although there is no material before the Appellate Authority to record the said finding. I am afraid the submission is devoid of any substance. It is well-settled that this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not enter into meticulous examination of fact and appreciate evidence unless finding is shown to be perverse. The Appellate Court on the basis of assertion made by the employee in the application and its reply by the employer came to the conclusion that the pay of the Supervisor was revised from Rs. 572 to Rs. 832/ -. The finding recorded by the Appellate Court is not perverse calling for interference, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed in motion hearing.