JUDGMENT : Mr. Justice V.K. Bist 1. For the last several occasions, learned counsel for the respondents did not appear in the case. Today also, none is present on behalf of the respondents, despite called repeatedly. Heard Mr. Lalit Miglani, advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. Briefly stated that in the year 1983, the petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar with respondent nos. 1 and 2. His services were terminated with effect from July 18, 2005. The petitioner moved an application before the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar under Payment of Wages Act, seeking direction to the respondents to pay him wages with effect from March 1, 2005 to July 18, 2005 @ Rs. 1,300/- per month. In said proceedings, the respondents filed their written statement in which they admitted that the petitioner was being paid wages @ Rs. 1,300/- per month. In their written statement, the respondents also asserted that wages for the period of three months was not paid to the petitioner, as for last sometime, the petitioner had committed irregularities and his behaviour was not satisfactory for which explanation was called from him, which was not found satisfactory. The petitioner was also transferred to Delhi Head Office, but he did not join there. Application of the petitioner was considered by the Prescribed Authority and was rejected. Appeal filed by the petitioner, against said Rejection Order, was also rejected by the District Judge, Haridwar vide impugned order dated October 12, 2007. The Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Haridwar dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was transferred for his misconduct and he did not join his post at that place and for this reason, the respondents rightly stopped his wages for a period of three months. 2. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the documents annexed with the writ petition. 3. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit it has been averred by the respondents that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but no satisfactory reply was given by him, but seeing his past record of service, on his consent, he was transferred to Delhi Head Office, but he did not join there, for which his wages were withheld by passing a proposal in a meeting for termination of his services. Thus, it is clear that the respondents themselves have admitted that the petitioner had worked with them. It is not the case of the respondents that when the petitioner did not join at Delhi Office, then his salary was stopped. The fact that the petitioner worked during the period March 1, 2005 to July 18, 2005 has also not been denied by the respondents. In such circumstances, I do not agree with the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the District Judge, Dehradun. 4. Since the petitioner had worked with the respondents during the period March 1, 2005 to July 18, 2005, this fact has not specifically been denied by the respondents in their written statement and services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from July 18, 2005, the respondents are liable to pay wages to the petitioner for the period for which he had already worked. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated July 23, 2007 passed by Prescribed Authority, Haridwar in Case No. PWA 33/2005 and the order dated October 12, 2007 passed by District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 45/2007 are quashed. The respondents are directed to make payment of wages with effect from March 1, 2005 to July 18, 2005, along with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) as compensation to the petitioner, within a period of four months from today.