KOTWAL MOOL RAJ Vs. JISHAN LAL KUTHIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bhadarwah dated 23 -12 -1985 dismissing the appeal against the dismissal of the claims petition filed under the payment of wages Act before the prescribed authority (Asstt. Labour Commissioner), Doda. The impugned order of the prescribed authority reads thus : Sail (sic) wa Vakil Sayl hazir. Vakil masul hazir Shri Swami Raj incharge ferm masul nai robararo adalat Shriman Baghwat Geeta ko hath mai autha kar kasam khaie hai ki sail Mul Raj anu deghar mazdooran Ki koie rakam bazima firm masul na hai aur firm, mazdooran nai apne aujrat ki rakam masul sai wasul paie hai lihaza qarar darkast sail mishal haza kharij hokar dakhal dafter ho hukam Sanaya gaya.

(2.) THIS shows that the claim was dismissed on the basis of a special oath. Rules 8, 9, & 10 of the judicial Oath Rules, 1950 provides as follows :

(3.) RULE 7 requires that there must be an offer by a party to be bound by a special oath and rule 9 makes it optional for the other party to accept it or not. Once the offer is accepted, it is to be followed by the administration of the oath. A perusal of the record in the instant case reveals that the statement of the respondents agent was not recorded. There is also nothing on the record to indicate, except the order impugned that the oath was actually administered by the officer concerned to Swami Raj incharge of the firm of respondent No ;1 Under rule 10 it is the evidence so given which is conclusive proof of the matters stated therein but in the absence of any contemporaneous record except its reference in the order of dismissal of the claim, the question of it being conclusive cannot arise. Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of the statement of Swami Raj it was not open to the prescribed authority to dismiss the claim petition. While it may not be desirable to lay down a general proposition that recording of statement under the oath rules is imperative as it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but at the same time it must be noticed that some contemporaneous record, other than the record impugned, showing that the oath was administered after acceptance of offer must be available to bind the parties. This could have been ensured by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner either by obtaining in writing from Swami Raj in reply to the application or by recording his statement.