Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1852 (HP)

Rattan Lal v. R. K. Seth

2015-12-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This petition has been instituted against Judgment dated 9.4.2015 rendered by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2014. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application stating therein that the respondent being a contractor of Irrigation and Public Health Department was awarded work of construction of sewerage tanks at Naina Devi, District Bilaspur. Respondent has engaged petitioner as sole in-charge and head of labourers team for completion of said work. He employed 40 labourers. Work commenced on 26.1.1997 and came to an end in October, 1997. Respondent paid only a sum of Rs. 2,63,859 out of entire amount of Rs. 3,46,880/- and remaining amount of Rs. 83,021/- was to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. 3. Application was contested by the respondent. He denied altogether that he was awarded work of construction of sewerage tanks at Naina Devi by the Irrigation and Public Health Department and he engaged petitioner as sole in-charge and head of labourers team. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. 4. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi on 14.10.2013. He awarded Rs. 83,021/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing application till the realization of the entire amount vide Award dated 20.6.2014. Respondent feeling aggrieved by Award dated 20.6.2014, preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mandi. He allowed the appeal on 9.4.2015. Hence, this petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 6. AW-1 Puran Parkash deposed that a notice received by the respondent. He sent reply to the same vide Ext. CE on the instructions of the respondent. 7. Petitioner has appeared as PW-2. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PA. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondent was awarded work by the Irrigation and Public Health of construction of sewerage tanks at Naina Devi. He was engaged by the respondent as sole in charge and head of labourers team. He deployed 40 labourers. Work commenced on 26.1.1997 and continued upto October, 1997. Respondent has only paid Rs. 2,63,859/- out of total of Rs. 3,46,880/- and remaining amount of Rs. 83,021/- has not been paid. He issued a legal notice on 23.12.1997. He was engaged by the respondent as sole in charge and head of labourers team. He deployed 40 labourers. Work commenced on 26.1.1997 and continued upto October, 1997. Respondent has only paid Rs. 2,63,859/- out of total of Rs. 3,46,880/- and remaining amount of Rs. 83,021/- has not been paid. He issued a legal notice on 23.12.1997. He has placed on record copy of legal notice as Ext. PA and copies of bills which were paid by him to the truck owner of truck No. 5252 at Bilaspur vide Ext. PB, PC, PD, PF, PG and PH. Reply was filed by the respondent to the legal notice dated 23.12.1997. 8. AW-3 Diwan Chand deposed that they have undertaken construction of sewerage tanks. Work was awarded to the respondent by the Irrigation and Public Health Department. Work was completed in October, 1997. Petitioner was in charge of the labourers team. The number of labourers deployed by him was 40. Contractor has paid Rs. 2,63,859/- out of Rs. 3,46,880/- remaining amount of Rs. 83,021/- was payable by the respondent. Petitioner used to pay charges to the labourers. Money for carriage of sand and gravel was also paid by the petitioner. He signed the receipts in his presence. Amount payable was due to labour charges. 9. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate has drawn attention to Ext. PA, legal notice dated 23.12.1997. It is specifically averred in the notice that the respondent has undertaken work of construction of sewerage tanks at Naina Devi. He engaged petitioner as head of labourers team for completion of work. 40 labourers were engaged by the petitioner. Work started on 26.1.1997. A sum of Rs. 83,021/- was not paid to the petitioner. Respondent in reply to the legal notice in para -1 has admitted categorically that the work was allotted to him by the Irrigation and Public Health Department. According to the reply, labourers were engaged by the petitioner at his own level and they have nothing to do with his client. Respondent has not appeared in the witness box nor led any evidence. In reply to the application, he has even denied that he was awarded work by the Irrigation & Public Health. But in the reply to notice, Ext. PA, he has admitted that the work was allotted to him. Respondent has not appeared in the witness box nor led any evidence. In reply to the application, he has even denied that he was awarded work by the Irrigation & Public Health. But in the reply to notice, Ext. PA, he has admitted that the work was allotted to him. It is duly established from the statements of AW-1 and AW-3 that respondent was awarded work of construction of sewerage tanks at Naina Devi. Petitioner was Supervisor. He has engaged 40 labourers. A sum of Rs. 2,63,859/- was paid only and remaining amount of Rs. 83,021/- was not paid. Learned trial Court has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 83,021/- to the petitioner towards wages. However, surprisingly, the first appellate Court without taking into consideration that the respondent has neither appeared in the Court nor led any evidence, got swayed by the fact that petitioner has placed on record Exts. PA to PH. What the petitioner wanted to prove by placing these documents on record in fact was that work was allotted to the respondent and petitioner has engaged labourers. First appellate Court has also misconstrued statement of AW-3 Diwan Chand. Statement is required to be read in its totality. Petitioner has duly proved that the amount claimed by him was towards wages of the labourers. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Judgment dated 9.4.2015 rendered by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2014 is set aside. Award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Civil Suit No. 16/98/13 dated 20.6.2014 is restored. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.