CHANGA MAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the orders passed in a proceeding started under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

(2.) Bhikhari Mistry, Respondent No. 4, filed an application, giving rise to the proceeding, on the 23rd January, 1967, before the Subdivisional Officer (Respondent No. 2) claiming that his wages have not been paid by the petitioner for the period from the 3rd March, 1963, to the 31st July, 1963. He stated that he was blacksmith, working under the petitioner and was entitled to his wages at the rate of Rs. 70 pert on of iron, on which he used to work. The total weight of the iron, for the purpose of payment of arrears of wages was mentioned as more than 28 tons, and a sum of Rs. 2,000 and odd was claimed. There was a prayer for condonation of the delay in filing the claim application.

(3.) The petitioner filed his objection, denying the liability and pointing out that before the application was filed by Respondent No. 4 he had admitted part-payment before the Labour Officer, Dalmianagar, by an application dated the 4th July, 1966 (Annexure T) One witness was examined in the proceeding and his deposition has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure 2. It was further mentioned that on the 30th July, 1973, a date to which the proceeding was adjourned, the petitioner's lawyer could not appear in time, when the case was called out and, although the Lawyer's Clerk has turned to call him the proceeding was disposed of by the learned Sub-divisional Officer by a perfunctory order, as mentioned in Annexure '3'. The entire claim made by the respondent was allowed. The Counsel for the petitioner appeared soon thereafter, but was orally directed to file an application for restoration of the case under the proviso to Rule 8 of the Bihar Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1965. The petitioner thereafter filed such an application which was also dismissed by an endorsement made on the application itself, as will appear from Annexure '4". The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge, which was rejected by an order as contained in Annexure '5', on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The present application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures '3' '4' and '5'.