RAMARAYA Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 28.5.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 1 Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") by which the claim of the respondent No. 3 Baldeo Singh filed under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (here in after referred to as "the Act of 1936") for Rs. 9,500/- was decreed be quashed and set aside and similarly, the appellate judgment dated 9.12.2002 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) by which the order Annexure P/2 dated 11.9.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 authority was upheld be also quashed and set aside.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : On 8.1.1997, the respondent No. 3 Baldeo Singh filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936 before the respondent No. 1 authority claiming that Rs. 24,000/- had been illegally deducted by the present petitioner as he had performed the job of labour with the petitioner in the field for the period from 1.4.1996 to 30.9.1996. A reply to the claim of the respondent No. 3 was filed by the present petitioner before the respondent No. 1 authority stating inter-alia that no work was performed by the respondent No. 3 under the petitioner and therefore, there was no question of deducting any wages. Hence, it was prayed that the claim application of the respondent No. 3 be dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 produced evidence in support of his claim. However, no evidence was led by the present petitioner despite several opportunities given to him. After hearing both the parties and considering the entire materials and evidence available on record, the respondent No. 1 authority through impugned order Annexure (May-78) P/2 dated 11.9.2000 came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to get Rs. 9,0007- from the petitioner and further, the respondent No. 3 was also entitled to get compensation of Rs 500/- and thus, the claim of the respondent No. 3 was decreed for Rs. 9500/-. Aggrieved from the said order dated 11.9.2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 1 authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar and the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) through impugned judgment dated 9.12.2002 (Annexure P/3) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 1 authority. Aggrieved from the said appellate judgment dated 9.12.2002 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2), this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. The mam case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not know in which month he had worked with the petitioner and he also did not know for which month his wages were due and therefore, the findings of both the Courts below awarding Rs. 9,500/- to the respondent No. 3 are wholly perverse and erroneous one and thus, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. No reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 3. However, during the course of arguments, a preliminary objection was raised by the learred Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 about the maintainability of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that against the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 9.12.2002 (Annexure P/3) passed on appeal under Section 17 of the Act of 1936, only civil revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code lies and no writ petition would lie. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same be dismissed as such. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhonwri Singh v. Dy. C.M.E. Loco Shops, W. Rly, Ajmer, 1958 RLW 420, and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Surendranathan Nair v. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (Rlys), 1988(1) LLJ 227 and Gauhati High Court in French Motor Car Co. Ltd. Workers' Union v. French Motor Car Co. Ltd., 1990 (60) IF & LR 709. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment of the District Judge passed on appeal under Section 17 of the Act of 1936 can be challenged through writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thus, this writ petition is maintainable and in support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Managing Member M/s. Nirmal Industries v. Naseemuddin, AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 370 and judgment of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sharma v. Union of India, 1984 RLR 740.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and gone through the materials available on record.