QUDDIUS ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 is not present. It appears that even on the last date also no one was present on behalf of respondent no. 3 and the matter was adjourned giving one indulgence to the respondent no. 3. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 20.12.2002, Annexure-4 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Payment of Wages Case No. 01 of 1999 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,32,000 to the opposite party no. 3 within a period of 3 months.

(2.) The brief fact as per the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 5.2.1988 and respondent no. 3 claimed that he was appointed as caretaker cum 'Durban' for the monthly salary of Rs. 1000/-. The instant proceeding under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was instituted by the respondent no. 3 being Payment of Wages Act Case No. 01 of 1999 seeking payment of wages from 1988 to 1998 along with penalty as prescribed under Section 20 of the said Act. The land lord / petitioner, herein refused to make the said payment despite respondent no.3 being discharging the duty of care taker. The land lord-opposite party, petitioner herein, appeared and submitted his written statement stating therein that the applicant- respondent no. 3 was only authorized to take care of the property without any salary or remuneration, hence cause of action for the respondent no. 3 does not arises at all. Further the claim is barred by law of limitation under the provision of section 15(2) of the Act, since the claim for payment of wages should be made within specified time and if it is beyond the period of 2 months then the applicant should have sufficient reason for not making application within time by showing sufficient cause. Petitioner also submitted before the respondent no. 2 that two persons who were engaged by him have appeared and deposed that they were actually taking care of the house and that the respondent no. 3 was never engaged for any wages or remuneration for the aforesaid purpose. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 himself was 'sarpanch' of the area and had telephone connection in his name, which is supported by Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He is well off person and there is no question of having engaged him as a care taker or workmen and giving wages to him. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, thereafter, framed six issues including whether there was any relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of clear denial of relationship of employer and employee and there being no such document to support such contention, as it appears from the letter dated 5.2.19898 itself, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, however the Labour Court proceeded to award the wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 along with penalty of 10 times the wages which is also excessive and arbitrary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this court to the determination of issue no. 5 has stated that the learned court below itself has, while deciding the issue of relationship of employer and employee categorically stated that the opposite party has denied the appointment of applicant as caretaker and hence, the question of payment does not arise, but the learned court below proceeded to direct the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the petitioner to make payment of salary @ 1000/- per month for the last 12 months along with 10 times the said amount as Penalty.