DELTA FORGING WORKS Vs. MANIK KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act directing the petitioner to pay to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 750/- towards wages and a compensation amounting to Rs. 5000/-and also an order directing payment of costs. The petitioner is the Delta Forging Works herein referred to as the Factory and the opposite party is Manik Karmakar.

(2.) Manik Karmakar filed a petition under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (called the Act hereinafter) before the Authority appointed under the Act on the allegation that he was an employee in the Factory and that he was not paid wages at all for the period from July, 1973 to November, 1973, for five months at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. He, therefore, claimed the said wages and compensation on account of deduction of wages. The factory appeared and objected to the claim of the employee on the ground that as he had not attended the factory for the alleged period, he. could not claim either wages or compensation. At the time of hearing, the employee was examined-in-chief but at the request of the Factory an adjournment was granted till 14-8-74. Again on the prayer of the Factory the hearing was shifted to 22-8-74. On that date again the Factory prayed for time and the hearing was fixed on 7-10-74. But on the said date fixed, the Factory neither appeared nor paid the adjournment costs awarded against it. The Authority fixed 27-11- 74 for further hearing. On that date even the employer Factory did not appear to contest. The employee was only examined-in-chief and not cross-examined. The Authority heard the argument advanced from the side of Manik Karmakar and on a consideration of the evidence on record, he was satisfied that the employee, a maintenance fitter while under the medical treatment under the auspices of E.S. I. was entitled to get the wages for five months against the leave accumulated due to him under the prescribed rules. The Authority, therefore, directed the employer Factory to pay Rs. 750/- towards wages and Rs. 5000/- as compensation. There was a further order to the employer to pay Rs. 95/- to the employee as adjournment costs.

(3.) Mr. Ganguli, the learned Advocate for the petitioner at first made an attempt to argue that the payment of wages as directed was without evidence and not justified. We find no force in this argument. It appears that the petitioner before us, the Factory took several adjournments of the hearing before the Authority but neither did it ultimately appear to contest the allegation of the employee by cross-examining him or by adducing evidence against him nor did it pay the adjournment costs. Clearly the Factory did not venture to challenge the claim of Manik Karmakar. The Authority is justified to hold, on the evidence and the facts and circumstances, that the employee was entitled to recover the wages for five months.