TULSI RAM Vs. UPBHOKTA SAHKARI BHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the employee, has been preferred against tie order, dated December 6, 1973, passed by learned District Judge, Jodhpur in an appeal, which was filed under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act (No. 4 of 1936)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are these : The petitioner was an employee of the nonpetitioner Up Bhokta Sahkari Bhandar, Ward No 25 ('the Bhandar' hereafter) on a salary of Rs. 100 per month He was not paid his salary for the period from September 1, 1%S to November 10, 1964 without any reason and was placed under suspension with effect from November 11, 1964 The case of the petitioner further is that since then, up to October 31, 1968, he was not paid any subsistence allowance or salary. The petitioner also stated that he was assured on a number of occasions that he would be paid the subsistence allowance or the salary, bat that was not done. In these circumstance, he filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Authority appointed under the Act at Jodbpuron November 7, 1968. He claimed wages for the period from September 1, IMS, to October 31, 1968 i.e. for 62 months @ 00/ -, amounting to Rs. 6200/ -. Be also claim d compensation. In para 4A of his application, the petitioner stated that he was in constant touch with the rton petitioner who asiswed early payment and, therefore, the delay in presenting the application may be condoned. The non petitioner submitted his written statement dated January 6, 1969 The application was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was n )t validly employed as an employee of the non petitioner, that the claim was barred by time and that 'he Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was also pleaded that one month after the suspension, the petitioner did not report himself of duty and engaged himself in service, and as such he was not entitled to any subsistence allowance with respect to the period of suspension. The following five issues were framed bf the Authority.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I.C. Maloo, learned Counsel for the non -petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case.