JUDGMENT -B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---The petitioner Textile Mills has assailed the judgment and order delivered by the learned Additional District Judge at Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 228 of 1981 whereby the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, rejecting the application of the respondent No. 1 employee was set aside. 2.The respondent employee approached the Labour Court and filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act and claimed that he was working as Assistant Motor Winder with the petitioner factory during the period from 17th January, 1977 to 17th January 1978 and he was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 205.90 Ps. as basic plus dearness allowance of Rs. 71.50 ps. as against the basic pay of Rs. 266.92 Ps. as applicable to the post of Assistant Motor Winder. Even the dearness allowance on the basic pay of Rs. 266.92 Ps. could have been Rs. 92.22 Ps. as was claimed by the applicant workman. The petitioner management appeared before the Labour Court and contested the claim stating therein that the applicant was appointed only as a substitute and he worked as Junior Assistant Winder, Wireman and also Assistant Winder. It was further submitted that the scale of pay to the post of Junior Assistant Winder, Wireman and Assistant Winder were different and, therefore, the applicant was not entitled for the pay scale applicable to the post of Assistant Motor Winder. It must be noted that there was no evidence brought on record by the management to show that the applicant did not work as Assistant Motor Winder. On the contrary, the management relied upon the attendance cards which were issued to the applicant and the learned Judge of the Labour Court accepted the contention of the management based on these cards alone. These cards, which have been brought on record, even alongwith the petition, do not indicate the nature of the work and, therefore, it would be incumbent upon the management to prove by oral and documentary evidence that the applicant did not work in the post of Assistant Motor Winder or he did not carry out the duties which are assigned to such a post. The onus to dislodge the claim of the applicant was squarely on the management who would be in possession of the necessary evidence, either oral or documentary. The onus to dislodge the claim of the applicant was squarely on the management who would be in possession of the necessary evidence, either oral or documentary. The management did not do so. The learned Judge of the Labour Court fell in error in accepting the contentions of the management that the applicant was only working as a substitute and he had been paid his wages rightly. 3.The learned Additional District Judge, on perusal of the record, has disagreed with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and rightly so. The conclusions drawn by the Additional District Judge are supported on the basis of the contentions raised by the applicant and there was no evidence contra to dislodge his claim. It is also to be noted that while admitting the petition this Court had directed the petitioner to pay the amount of wages as directed by the lower Appellate Court on furnishing security by the respondent. This has been done and the respondent No. 1 has already received the amount pursuant to the order impugned. 4.For the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegalities and, therefore, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order stands vacated and it is hereby declared that the security furnished by the respondent No. 1 stands cancelled. No costs. Petition dismissed. -----