MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. KHUBILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Court, This order will dispose of two civil revisions numbered I. S. B. Civil Revision No. 277/87 M. C. Udaipur v. Khubilal and 2. S. B. Civil Revision No. 301/87 Khubilal v. Administrator, M. C. Udaipur as they arise from the same order passed by the District Judge, Udaipur dated 10. 3. 87, whereby the learned District Judge, upheld the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur dated 30. 9. 1985, in Misc. Appeals No. 171/1985 and 175/85 respectively. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act No. 4/1936) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepted the claim of Khubilal in part and declined to award compensation equal to 10 times of the amount of deducted wages.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to these revision petitions are that Khubiial filed a claim Under Section 15 (2) of the Act and alleged that he was employed on daily wages as work charged employee w. e. f 1. 10. 73 by Municipal Council, Udaipur, and he continued to work as Mistry (civil) till his services were terminated by the order dated 24. 9. 1975. On rising an industrial dispute and on reference the Industrial Tribunal held that the order of termination was illegal and directed the Municipal Council to reinstate with full back wages treating him as a Veldar. He was not paid the wages of Mistry as per the B. S. R. Rules and wages could not be deducted from 24. 9. 75 to 10. 9. 84, amounting to Rs. 64,951,37/- after deducting the amount of provident fund i. e. Rs. 6657. 74 it comes to Rs. 58,293. 63/ -.

(3.) THE claim was contested by the Municipal Council, Udaipur on the ground that Khubilal was never appointed as Mistry, therefore, he was only entitled to wages on casual labour as per daily wages at the relevant time. The payment of Rs. 16,479/-was made to him taking 9 Rs. per day thus prayed for rejection of his claim. The Authority under the Act held that worker applicant was entitled to the wages of Mistry, in accordance with B. S. R. from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. The Authority thus calculated Rs. 56,526/-out of which Rs. 16,479/- was already paid and, therefore, after deducting the said amount an order of Rs. 40,047/- was made alonewith litigation charges of Rs. 1000/-the final order was made for Rs. 41,047/ -. The appellant Municipal Council, preferred appeal against the said order to the Court of District Judge that the Authority has erred in deciding Khubilal as Mistry. Khubilal also preferred a cross-appeal against the award for not awarding compensation to the extent of 10 times of deducted wages on the ground of deductions. The Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals. Both the parties have challenged the order of the Appellate Court dated 10. 3. 1987 by filing revisions before this Court.