Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2453 (RAJ)

Zakir Ali v. Life Insurance Corporation

2017-11-07

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 27.8.13 passed by the District Judge, Churu, whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent-employer under Section 17 of Payments of Wages Act, 1936 (for short "the Act") questioning the legality of order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, directing payment of wages to the petitioner quantified at Rs. 11,388/- and equal amount as compensation with expenses Rs. 200/-, has been set aside. 2. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 15 of the Act against the first respondent claiming payment of wages for the period from 1.10.05 to 31.3.06, quantified at Rs. 11,388/- and ten times compensation quantified at Rs. 1,38,880/-. 3. It was specific stand of the respondents that the petitioner had worked only for the period from 9th July, 05 to 30th September, 05. Since, the respondents did not produce the record relating to the payment of wages for the period October, 05 to March, 06, the Payment of Wages Authority proceeded to draw the adverse inference regarding non payment of wages, observing that even the conciliation proceedings in respect of the dispute raised by the petitioner regarding termination of his services has failed. Accordingly, the Payment of Wages Authority directed the respondent-employer to make payment to the petitioner herein as aforesaid. 4. Aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, the respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Churu, which stands allowed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has seriously erred in setting aside the order directing payment of wages on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service and the factum of petitioner being in service of the respondent for the period from October, 05 to March, 06, is not proved. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at is not based on any material on record. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner claimed to be in continuous service of the respondent-employer for the period from July, 05 to March, 06. Admittedly, the payment of wages for the period from July, 05 to September, 05 was made to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the finding arrived at is not based on any material on record. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner claimed to be in continuous service of the respondent-employer for the period from July, 05 to March, 06. Admittedly, the payment of wages for the period from July, 05 to September, 05 was made to the petitioner. No material whatsoever was placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the case set out that he was in employment of the respondent for the period from October, 05 to March, 06. The adverse inference drawn by the Payment of Wages Authority on the ground that the material was not placed on record by the employer to disprove the case set out by the petitioner was absolutely erroneous. It is not disputed before this court that the petitioner had also raised an industrial dispute against termination of his services which was not found worth referring to the Labour Court for adjudication. In this context, the District Judge has observed that the petitioner has preferred the application for payment of wages so as to substantiate his case regarding completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year but the fact remains that the factum of the petitioner being in employment during the period from October, 05 to March, 06, was not proved by producing any cogent evidence on record. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge, which remains a finding of fact and cannot be said to be capricious or perverse, does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.