Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 93 (RAJ)

ICICI Bank v. Prescribed Authority

2013-01-14

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 26 and 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner Bank is challenging the validity of the order dated 5.10.2012 (Annex. 2) passed by the District and Sessions Judge (Metropolitan), jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 10/2009 whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the prescribed Authority under the Payment of wages Act, Jodhpur in favour of workman respondent No. 2 Gopal Singh and issued direction to the petitioner and to pay salary of T 26,280/-. 2. As per brief facts of the case, respondent No. 2 Gopal Singh moved application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and claimed that he as appointed as Class IV employee by the respondent Bank on 9.6.1999 by a verbal order and he worked till 15.10.2001 at the rate of Rs. 7 1500/- per month and e said amount of salary was continued to be paid to respondent No. 2 Gopal fingh by the petitioner Bank upto 30.6.2000; but, thereafter although he performed duty as Class IV employee in the Bank till his termination with effect from 15.10.2001 payment of his salary was not made to him. 3. The Prescribed Authority after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Bank and recording evidence of both the sides while framing issues adjudicated the matter that the claimant-respondent is entitled to receive amount of Rs. 23,250/- as salary of the period from 1.7.2000 to 15.10.2001, Rs. 3,0001- as compensation and ? 30/- as cost, in all Z 26,280/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank vehemently argued that the Prescribed Authority was not having any jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy because the petitioner Bank was disputing the verbal appointment of respondent No. 2 Gopal Singh and in the event of raising objection to his appointment, there was no jurisdiction left with the Prescribed Authority tinder the Payment of Wages Act to adjudicate the claim of salary and matter of appointment was to be adjudicated in an industrial dispute, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority, so also, the order passed by the District & Sessions Judge in appeal deserve to be quashed. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank further argued that the order of the Prescribed Authority for payment of salary is totally in contravention of the basic principle of law because there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute with regard to master and servant relationship of the petitioner Bank with respondent claimant Gopal Singh but, in the application filed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936, the Prescribed Authority illegally exercised the jurisdiction and adjudicated the matter that respondent No. 2 Gopal Singh was provided appointment upon consolidated wages of T 1500/- per month by the verbal order by the petitioner Bank. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment reported in (1962) ILLJ 604 Raj, Union of India v. Vishwa Deo , so also, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Writ No. 32242/1997 on 11.5.2012 and submits that in the light of the adjudication made in the cited cases, both the orders impugned may be quashed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Bank, I have carefully perused order Annex. 1 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 under Section 15(2) of the said Act. 8. Admittedly, the claimant made a specific averment in the claim application that he was appointed on 9.6.1999 and salary was paid to him month by month upto 30.6.2000, then obviously, the petitioner Bank was under obligation to produce before the Court the relevant vouchers for the period in question; but, no documentary evidence is produced by the petitioner Bank before the court to prove the fact that in between the Court to prove the fact that in between 9.6.1999 to 30.6.2000 no salary was paid to him. The petitioner Bank only raised the ground that no verbal appointment in favour of the respondent-claimant was made. 9. In the trial, the Prescribed Authority accepted the statements of two independent witnesses produced by the workman-respondent No. 2 in support of his claim to accept his contention that he was engaged by the Bank as an employee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Prescribed Authority adjudicated the matter with regard to master and servant relationship between the Bank and respondent workman. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Prescribed Authority adjudicated the matter with regard to master and servant relationship between the Bank and respondent workman. It is also worthwhile to observe that in all the claim of amount of salary of Z 26,280/- is passed by the Prescribed Authority, against which, appeal was preferred but both the Courts below gave concurrent finding with regard to the verbal appointment of respondent No. 2. 10. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot enter into factual aspects of the matter, so also, both the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner Bank are not relevant to adjudicate the present controversy because no evidence except statement of witnesses produced before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, therefore, the said Authority arrived at the finding that the Bank has made payment of salary vide receipts of payment from 9.6.1999 to 30.6.2000 and failed to produce documentary evidence to refute the claim of the respondent No. 2. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the award impugned passed by the learned Prescribed Authority.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******