SAPAN KUMAR BURMAN Vs. RAJAN KUMAR SHRIVASTAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ application have challenged the order dated December 31, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour court, Deoghar in P. W. Case No. 3/2000, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 88,500/- by way of payment of wages to the respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the house bearing Holding No. 39 within Ward No. 17 of the Deoghar Municipality, which was acquired by him by way of inheritance, from his mother. Later, he sold the house to the petitioner no. 2. The respondent No. 1, Rajan Kumar shrivastav, claiming himself to be employed as an undertaker by the petitioners for looking after and managing the aforesaid holding of the petitioners at Deoghar, filed a petition before the Labour Court, Deoghar under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on November 17, 2000, contending therein, that he was employed by the petitioners in the year 1995 as a caretaker, on a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month i. e. @ Rs. 100/- per day. Later on, after the petitioner No. 1 sold away the property to the petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No; 2 also continued to appoint him as the Caretaker of the aforesaid Holding on and. from the month of july, 1998 on the same terms of salary. The respondent No. 1 had claimed that since december. 1995, his wages remained unpaid and total sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- accrued as arrears which remained unpaid to him by the petitioners. His further contention was that both the petitioners, by virtue of an oral agreement, had agreed to transfer a piece of land measuring 20 ft. x 50 ft. within the aforesaid holding forhis residential purposes. His prayer before the court below was for an order directing to the petitioners to pay the wages (flue to him and also for a direction to transfer the piece of land measuring 20ft. x 50ft. within the said Holding in his favour.

(3.) THE petitioners appeared before the court below in the aforesaid proceeding and submitted their written submissions denying and disputing the entire claim of the respondent no. 1. Their specific stand was that they had never appointed the respondent No. 1 as the caretaker of their building at Deoghar, nor did they enter into any such agreement with the respondent No. 1 either for payment of any daily wages or monthly wages or for transfer of any portion of the premises within their Holding at Deoghar in his favour. The specific stand taken by the petitioners in their written statements was that they had executed a power of attorney on July 9, 1998 in favour of the respondent, Rajan Kumar Shrivastav for the limited purposes of presenting applications and to make Pairvi in the Title Suit filed by the petitioners, which was pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge I, Deoghar vide Title Suit No. 21 of 1998.