Gomathi Ammal v. Kannan — 1999 DIGILAW 964 (MAD)

Judgment : The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16. 1996 made in C.M.A.No.84 of 1995 by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, thereby confirming the award dated 2. 1995 passed in P.W.No.6 of 1994 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2. 2. If wetrace the history of the case, the original application has been filed by the respondent herein before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2 under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 pleading thereby that he joined the service of the petitioner/employer on 14. 1991 on a monthly salary of Rs.600 that for the first six months, he received the salary and thereafter he was told that the monthly salary would be deposited in the Bank in his account; that in the said manner, an amount of Rs.18,000 i.e., Rs. 600 per month for 30 months from 310. 1991 had to be paid to him, but only an amount of Rs.600 had been paid to him and the rest of the amount of Rs.17,400, which is due by way of salary has not been paid to him in spite of many demands, as a result of which he sent a legal notice to the revision petitioner herein demanding the said amount but no reply was sent by the revision petitioner. Hence, demanding the said amount of Rs.17,400 and ten times the said amount as compensation, he filed the petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2. 3. On the contrary, it would be urged by the revision petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli -2, in her counter, that the respondent herein joined duty only on 12. 1992 and that his salary then was Rs.300 and the batta was Rs.300 and thus in toto he was getting an amount of Rs.600 per month; that upto September, 1993 he had received the said amount; that there had been lot of complaints against the respondent by the customers and when it was enquired into by the employer he abused her in filthy language and left the job on 210. 1993; that the respondent can ask only for the salary of October, 1993, which was due to him and hence there was only an amount of Rs.750.95 ps. 1993; that the respondent can ask only for the salary of October, 1993, which was due to him and hence there was only an amount of Rs.750.95 ps. in his account that is due to him and when it was revealed, the respondent threatened to commit murder of the employer and had gone out of scene, that the petition is not on merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. TheDeputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2 having enquired into the pleadings of parties and arriving at the conclusion that there was a due of only Rs.716 to the employee by the employer, multiplied the same with five and has ordered to pay Rs.3,580 to the employee by the employer. 5. On appeal preferred by the employer testifying the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the appellate authority and the II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli having framed two points for determination, viz., .• 1. Whether there had been any illegal deductions from out of the salary of the respondent/employeee and .• 2. Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2 to pay the arrears in five times is a valid one would have his own discussion and decide the matter dismissing the appeal with costs. It is only challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, the employer has come forward to file the above civil revision petition, on grounds such as, (i) that the respondent has made a false claim suppressing the vital facts and hence the court below should have dismissed the petition; (ii) that the court below ought to have considered the fact that the respondent has not come for collecting the balance and hence there was no violation of rules; (iii) that the court below ought to have considered the fact that the respondent has not come for collecting the balance and hence there was no violation of rules; (iii) that the court below ought to have considered the fact that the respondent has not rebutted the evidence produced by the petitioner and hence the penalty is uncalled for; and (iv) that the courts below have completely erred in holding that the appellant has violated Sec.15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 even though there was no material evidence produced by the respondent. When the above matter was taken up for consideration, only Mr.D.Veerasekaran, counsel for the petitioner appeared and argued the case of the revision petitioner. Not only on the date of hearing but on previous occasions as well, neither the respondent appeared in person, since he has not engaged any lawyer, nor any other valid representation made on his behalf and hence hearing the arguments of the counsel for the revision petitioner alone and on perusal of the records, the above case is being decided. 6. Onthe part of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel would argue that it is the concurrent finding given by both the authorities below and the said dispute was placed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli region on 2. 1995; that the revision petitioner is the proprietrix of the Mac Gas Agency, Valliyur and the respondent was a loadman in the said Gas Agency; that on 312. 1993, the employee filed an application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour stating thereby that he joined duty on 14,4.1991 on a monthly salary of Rs.600 and that he served till 310. 1993. He has further stated that the Management would pay an amount of Rs.100 and deposit Rs.500 from out of his salary of Rs.600 that for 30 months, the balance amount of Rs.17,400 is due and that he was sent out of the job on 310. 1993 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dismissed the plea of the employee; that the remaining amount of Rs.716 from out of the salary which is due to the petitioner has not been paid admittedly by the revision petitioner but it had been adjusted for the purpose of the spare parts for the cycle and held that the respondent is entitled for the said sum and has ordered to pay the five times the said amount of Rs.716 under Sec.15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 since it was deliberately withheld. The learned counsel would also point out that the appellate court has upheld the verdict of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal preferred before it and hence the revision petition by the employer. 7. The learned counsel would also point out that the appellate court has upheld the verdict of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal preferred before it and hence the revision petition by the employer. 7. Thelearned counsel would further argue that the employee failed to turn-up get the said payment for 28 days, amounting to Rs.716 and it is not at all the fault committed on the part of the employer and hence the findings of both the courts below are not based on the averments of the petition but otherwise; that for the misconduct of the employee, exhibits are marked and the Wages Register had also been marked before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Ultimately, the learned counsel would point out that the finding is only based on the counter and the same is perverse and would pray for setting aside the orders passed by both the courts below. 8. It is a case under the Payment of Wages Act initiated by the employee against the employer thereby claiming on amount of Rs.17,400 said to be the arrears of salary. On the part of the employee, he examined himself but marked no documents. In his deposition, he would emphasize what he has pleaded in his petition. But, he has not substantiated what he pleaded in the petition either on reliable oral evidence or on documentary evidence to the effect that an amount of Rs.17,400 is due to him from his employer. 9. On the contrary, the employer has not only testified herself as R.W.2 but also has examined another employee working in the same position that the respondent herein is said to have done as R.W.1 whose evidence would clearly prove that the Management was in the habit of disbursing the monthly salaries in full and nothing is being withheld. On the part of the employer, besides the oral evidence, four documents would also be marked as Exs.OP-1 to OP-4. Ex.OP-1 being the payment register maintained from November, 1992 to October, 1993, Ex.OP-2. being the Service Card, Ex.OP-3 being the series of complaints against the respondent herein and Ex.OP-4 being the spare parts receipt. On the part of the employer, besides the oral evidence, four documents would also be marked as Exs.OP-1 to OP-4. Ex.OP-1 being the payment register maintained from November, 1992 to October, 1993, Ex.OP-2. being the Service Card, Ex.OP-3 being the series of complaints against the respondent herein and Ex.OP-4 being the spare parts receipt. From Ex.OP-1 Payment Register, it is quite evident that the monthly salaries of the respondent have been disbursed till the end of September, 1993 and that only an amount of Rs.716 being one month salary and the other arrears are shown as due to the respondent herein and this Register has been well maintained so as to infuse confidence in the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, as a result of which relying on the oral evidence and this documentary evidence, he has ultimately, arrived at the conclusion to order the said amounts to be paid in five times since it was deliberately withheld invoking the relevant provision under Sec.15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 10. The appellate authority also, having discussed the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by parties and the evidence let in and weighing the evidence in the light of the discussions of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour legally, has accepted the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour further dismissing the appeal with costs. 11. In the grounds of revision, all the grounds are focused only on facts, which have already been weighed in evidence, discussed in full and the decision arrived at by both the statutory authorities the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and then the appellate authority and this revisional court, normally, does not interfere with such of the appreciation of the evidence since no reappraisal or reappreciation of evidence is expected from the revisional court at all nor am I able to find the decisions arrived at by the courts below to be perverse in any manner and hence all the grounds raised on the part of the revision petitioner having already been answered by the statutory authorities below, it is not for this Court to reappreciate the same and hence they are wholesale dismissed as not relevant for being considered by this revisional court. 12. 12. Moreover, it is a concurrent finding that has been rendered by the enquiry authority and the appellate authority in which, normally, this revisional Forum is not expected to interfere with unless it is shown that the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below are perverse so as to make the revision petitioner become prejudiced against. So far as the facts and circumstances of the case in toto are concerned, they have been well considered in a merited manner and since I am able to see no patent errors or perversity in approach by both the authorities below interference by this revisional court is quite unwarranted and uncalled for. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2 has rightly arrived at the conclusion to order the detained amount of Rs.716 to be paid in five times, amounting to Rs.3,580, as per Sec.15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 since it came to be proved that it had been unreasonably and deliberately withheld without being paid to the employee and the appellate authority too has arrived at the valid conclusion to dismiss the appeal thereby confirming the valid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. In the above circumstances, this Court is also left with no option but to confirm the orders passed by both the initial and appellate authorities. 13. In result, the above civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 16. 1996 made in C.M.A.No.84 of 1995 by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli thereby confirming the award dated 2. 1995 passed in P.W.No.6 of 1994 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli-2 coupled with the costs is hereby upheld. 14. No separate cost is allowed in this revision petition.