Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1962 (HP)

Budhi Singh v. Kartar Singh

2018-11-12

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.4.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.07/10 of 2016/14, titled as Kartar Singh v. Budhi Singh, whereby the objections having been filed by the petitioner(hereinafter referred to as ''JD'') came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''DH'') filed a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, for recovery of Rs. 53,800/- being arrears of unpaid wages against the present petitioner-JD. Aforesaid petition came to be allowed ex-parte against the present petitioner-JD vide order dated 30.12.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum- JMIC, Court No.2, Ghumarwin acting as Authority under section 15(E) of the Payment of Wages Act. 3. Subsequently, on 1.3.2014, DH filed the petition, praying therein for execution of the said order for recovery of amount of Rs. 53,800/- in terms of order dated 30.12.2013 passed by authority under section 15(E) of Payment of Wages Act. DH also claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- to each of the labourer and as such, in total claimed an amount of Rs. 62,800/-. 4. In the aforesaid execution petition, JD filed objections and claimed that authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, therefore, order dated 30.12.2013 has been passed without jurisdiction and the same cannot be executed. JD also claimed before the Executing Court that he had never engaged services of DH and other persons for construction and repair of his house and as such, petition under Payment of Wages Act is/ was not maintainable. JD also claimed before the Executing Court that he had never engaged services of DH and other persons for construction and repair of his house and as such, petition under Payment of Wages Act is/ was not maintainable. JD also claimed before the Executing Court that petition under Payment of Wages Act, is not maintainable in the present facts and circumstances of the case because Payment of Wages Act, is applicable only in case of industrial establishment and where there is relationship of employer and employee between the parties, whereas in the present case the parties are private persons and there is no industrial establishment and dispute of industrial workers is not involved in the present case and as such, order passed by the authority under Payment of Wages Act on 30.12.2013, is not sustainable on facts and law and the same being nullity cannot be executed. However, fact remains that Executing Court vide order dated 18.4.2018 dismissed the aforesaid objections having been filed by the JD and directed the JD to pay a sum of Rs. 62,800/- to the petitioner or deposit with the Court at the earliest, failing which to show cause as to why coercive measures as provided by law be not adopted against him. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasoning recorded by the learned Executing Court below while passing impugned order, dated 18.4.2018, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, same deserves to be upheld. 6. Question with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of authority to pass order under section 15(E) of Payment of Wages Act, could not be rightly gone into by the Executing Court in the Execution proceedings, rather Executing Court is/was only concerned with the implementation of the judgment/ order/decree, if any, passed by the Court. If JD was aggrieved with the passing of order, dated 18.4.2018 on the ground of jurisdiction and maintainability, he ought to have filed appeal or appropriate proceedings, as provided under Act, but definitely implementation/execution of impugned order could not be challenged on the ground of maintainability/jurisdiction that too in the execution proceedings. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Court below and as such, same is upheld. The petition is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. 8. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Court below and as such, same is upheld. The petition is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. 8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner undertakes to cause presence of the petitioner before the learned Court below on 27.11.2018, to enable it to proceed further in the matter.