SURAJ MAL Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated August 1, 1978 of the learned District judge, Churu, by, which he accepted in part of appeal of the petitioner who was opposite party No. 1 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. IV of 1936)(for short the Act,).

(2.) A few facts deserve recall there. The non -petitioner No. 1 (applicant before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) claimed a sum of Rs. 10, 680/ - being the amount of wages for the period from April 1, 1974 to September 30, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 360/ - per month and over time for the same period at the rate of four hours a day. In this revision, the petitioner will be referred to as opposite party No. 1 and the non petitioner will be referred to as the applicant. The application under Section 15(2) of the Act was submitted on November 6, 1975 before the Authority appointed under the Act ('the Authority' hereafter). It was mentioned that the opposite -party No. 1 is the Managing Director of the Bhaskar Textile Mills Jharsuguda (Orissa) and that the sent the applicant to Rajgarh (Sadulpur) where a college building was under constitution and the college building was to be constructed by the finds to be arranged and supplied by opposite -part) No. 1. It was further stated that the applicant worked therein the Mohta College from April 2, 1973 to March 19, 1974 and was getting his wages @ Rs. 360/ - per month from the opposite -party No. 1. On March 19, 1974, the applicant met with an accident and was admitted in Bhagwani Devi Hospital, Sadulpur. He was not paid wages for the month of April 1974. On being continuously approached, he was told that his cues would be paid on the arrival of opposite -party No. 1. The applicant also stated that in October 1975 when opposite -party No. 1 came to Sadulpur, he net him and demanded his wages and overtime act. but he was told by opposite part No. 1 that after the accident, he is no more in service and, therefore, the question of payment of his dues does not arise. Opposite -party No. 1 Brij Mohan Sharma, Secretary, Mohta College, Rajgarh (Sadulpur); opposite -party No. 2 end Shri M.R. Vyas, Principal, Mohta College, Rajgarh (Sadulpur) opposite -party No. 3 were impleaded as eppesite parties in the application The applicant claimed Rs. 6480/ - on account of arrears of wages from April 1, 1974 to September 30, 1975 and overtime for the period from April 1, 1974 to March 18, 1975 amounting to Rs. 4200/ -. The application Under Section 15(2) was submitted in the prescribed preform with Annexure A, and a separate application was also submitted stating the reasons for not filing the application within the period of limitation prescribed Under Section 15(2) of the Act. In column 2 of the application, Under Section 15(2) it was mentioned by the applicant that opposit -party No. 1, opposite -party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 are the persons responsible for the payment of his wages under Section 3 of the Act any their addresses for the service of the notices and processes were mentioned.

(3.) ON behalf of the opposite -party No. 1, a detailed written -statement was submitted before the Authority on January 14, 1976 Opposite -parties Nos. 2 and 3, Brijmohan Sharma and M.R. Vyas, submitted a joint written -statement on January 16, 1976. All the opposite -parties resisted the claim of the applicant on various ground. A true -copy of the applicant's statement of the Provident Fund Account as on March 31, 1975 dated September 1, 1975 was produced by his counsel. It appears from the record that a notice dated January 31, 1976 was issued by the counsel for the applicant to the Advocate for the opposite -parties, which was retired by the Advocate for the opposite -parties vide reply dated March 26, 1976. On April 21, 1976, it was ordered that the applicant should lead evidence and the opposite -parties be called for cress on the written reply, submitted by them. It was ordered that all the three opposite -parties should appear for statement and cross on April 28, 1976 at Ratangarh camp. On May 25, 1976, an application was moved on behalf of the opposite -parties that the order dated April 21, 1976 may be set aside and the evidence of the applicant may be recorded first. On that day another application was submitted on their behalf prating therein not before recording the evidence, not legal points, which were mentioned in the application, may be decided first. On this application, the Authority recorded the following order: These issues are to be decided by hearing both parties and not prior to giving both the parties an hearing. (There are some mistakes) In the proceedings of 25 -5 -1976, amongst other things, it was recorded that last opportunity is being given to both the parties to appear on the next date other wise in their absence or in the absence of either of them, final decision would be taken on the basis of the material on record On 14 -6 -1976, the applicant, Surajbhan Choudhary examined himself in support of the claims & he was cross -examined on behalf of the opposite -parties. The opposite parties did not submit themselves s for examination. The Authority aojourned the case for orders on 16 -6 -1976. It appears from the order -sheet of june 16, 1976 that an application was submitted on behalf of the opposite -parties that they may be granted an opportunity to produce evidence. It was, inter alia mentioned that the opposite -parties would produce the evidence on the next date. It was recorded that the opposite parties must appear on July 13, 1976 in person or through their authorised representative who may be able to answer all material questions. It was specifically mentioned that this chance is being given to the opposite -parties to produce their evidence, documents etc. and it they fail to do so, no further opportunity would be granted to them. On July 13, 1976 en behalf of the opposite parties time was sought which was declined and the cafe was posted for arguments After hearing the arguments, the Authority passed an order that the applicant is entitled to wages for the period of April 1, 1974, to September 30, 1975 amounting to Rs. 6,480/ - and overtime wages amounting to Rs. 4200/ - from April 1, 1973 to March 19, 1974, total Rs. 10,680/ -; The Authority further awarded an equal amount of c impersation to the applicant. The Authority, therefore, issued the following directions under Section 15(2) of the Act for making payment to the applicant by the opposite -party No. 1. either as Managing Director of the Bhaskar Textile Mills or the Chairman of the Mohta Education Society or the trustee of the Mohta Charitable Trust in any one or more of the capacities, he is holding m these institutions. The details of the amount awarded to the, applicant are: