JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard Sri Lav Kumar Agrawal and Sri D.N. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Singh for the respondents in respective writ petitions. 2. Writ Petition No.1616 (MS) of 2010 has been filed by U.P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) challenging the order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 holding it liable for payment of wages to the opposite party no.2-workman opposite party no.1 died during pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs have been substituted. 3. Proceedings were initiated by the private opposite party under Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1936’) for payment of wages for the period May, 2006 to May 2007 claiming relief against the Corporation @Rs.86 per day i.e. Rs.2064 per month. Summons were issued to the petitioner herein who filed written statement etc. 4. The workmen led oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner i.e. the employer also led oral as well as documentary evidence which was in the form of work contract issued to the petitioner of connected writ petition No.1903 (MS) of 2010 for a period of two months. 5. At this stage it is not out of place to mention that after filing the written statement and amended written statement Paragraph 12 of the said statement was amended by the petitioner of writ petition no.1616(MS) of 2010 to say that the operation of the Sub Station concerned was handed over to the contractor for some period. Two documents were filed to show that M/s Garg Trading Company was the Contractor. These documents are annexed as Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition which show that the said Company was engaged for the month of August, 2006 and May 2007 to July 2007 for operation of 33/11 KV Sub Station, Amaniganj, (Milkipur), District Faizabad to maintain proper supply of electricity through skilled Sub Sub Station Operator and other staff having required qualification. However, for the remaining period of the claim no such document was filed nor was any document filed to show that the workmen were in fact engaged by the Garg Trading Company. 6. The respondent Ms/ Garg Trading Co. However, for the remaining period of the claim no such document was filed nor was any document filed to show that the workmen were in fact engaged by the Garg Trading Company. 6. The respondent Ms/ Garg Trading Co. after being impleaded on 09.04.2010 filed its written statement alleging that no relief had been claimed against it and it had never engaged the said workmen. Workmen also filed pleadings that they had never been engaged by the said Company nor had worked for them nor received any wages. 7. After hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority considered the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The oral evidence in the form of three witnesses produced by the workmen including Ram Bahor, a retired employee of the petitioner-Power Corporation, who was posted at the relevant time at Sub Station Amaniganj (Milkipur). Documentary evidence was also led by the workmen in the form of log-sheets,, etc. which indicated the attendance of the workmen and counter signatures by the Junior Engineer etc. of the Power Corporation. These documents were shown to the witnesses of the Corporation-employer. No documentary evidence was produced by the Corporation in rebuttal to show that there was no engagement of the workmen or that the documents submitted by the them were forged and fabricated, although, they had ample opportunity to do so. Even during the examination of the employer witnesses they were asked as to whether they had brought the original attendance register, log-book etc., wherein, though, they admitted to the preparation of the said documents in the year 2005-06 and thereafter, they clearly stated that they had not brought the documents. No such documentary evidence was filed by the Power Corporation on affidavit though it could have very well be done. 8. The Prescribed authority considered the oral evidence before it and found that though the appointment letter was not issued to the workmen as was admitted to them, it was their case that they had been engaged by Sri V.P Srivastava who worked at the sub Station for three months as Junior Engineer and thereafter Sri Umesh Vikram Srivastava S.D.O. who functioned at Amaniganj. They used to work under the direction of the Junior Engineer. They stated that their attendance used to be recorded on the attendance register and the Junior Engineer used to take the attendance, check the same and sign it. They used to work under the direction of the Junior Engineer. They stated that their attendance used to be recorded on the attendance register and the Junior Engineer used to take the attendance, check the same and sign it. The copies of the log-sheet for the period May 2006 to May 2007 were on record which contained the details of the duties rendered and bore the signatures of the Junior Engineer. Various documents were seen by the workmen during their testimony and based thereon they supported their claim to the wages for the period in question. These documents had been shown to bear the signatures of the Junior Engineer. Workmen were cross-examined. They clearly stated that they had never been engaged by Garg Trading Company nor had worked under it. Sri Ram Bahor, one of the workmen witnesses, who was an erstwhile employee of the Power Corporation deposed in favour of the workmen and proved that they had been engaged by the Corporation and worked during the period in question. Their attendance was marked in the attendance register and Exhibit bearing No.6 contained his name (Ram Bahor) in Column No.4 which also bore the name of workmen Rajendra Prasad and Shiv Kumar and that the said Exhibit was the photo copy of the attendance register which was maintained at Mohammadpur Amaniganj (Milkipur) Sub Station and he also stated that Exhibit 17 to 35 were also copies of the daily log-sheets maintained at Mohammadpur Amaniganj Sub Station. He also stated that as long as the workmen worked there, he had not met any contractor nor was any contractor working. He also stated that no regular appointment had been made on the post of Sub Station Officer and the Class IV posts for long. 9. As regards the witnesses of the employer Sri Umesh Vikram Srivastava SDO was not produced for examination. Ram Surat Verma one of the witnesses admitted that he was not posted at the sub Station during the period in question. He admitted to the fact that log-book and attendance register were maintained but no such documentary evidence was produced. Ram Surat Verma did make a statement that the signatures on Exhibit 1 to 35 appear to be forged but he did not explain as to how and why it appeared to him to be so. Moreover forgery is easier to allege but difficult to prove. Ram Surat Verma did make a statement that the signatures on Exhibit 1 to 35 appear to be forged but he did not explain as to how and why it appeared to him to be so. Moreover forgery is easier to allege but difficult to prove. The Corporation could have very well produced the original log book and the attendance registers pertaining to the period in question to show that the copies of the documents filed by the workmen were forged and fabricated, and if they did not do so, inspite of sufficient opportunity, then obviously, an adverse inference was bound to be drawn. Moti Lal the employer witness admitted to the fact that he had not seen the attendance register and log-book of the relevant period nor had he brought the same with him. He admitted that Ram Bahor was his sub-ordinate officer who worked at Amaniganj. Though he stated that as per requirement the Superintending Engineer used to take work from the contractor, he could not point out as to how many contractors had been engaged during the relevant period. He admitted to the fact that the attendance register and log-books were available at Milkipur Sub Station. Yet, the Corporation did not produce the same. He stated that charge of Amaniganj Sub Station was not with him and that it was with Sri Umesh Vikram Srivastava SDO who had not informed him as to how many persons he had engaged and that he was not aware of the names of the workmen and staff engaged at Amaniganj Sub Station. He had been transferred when the workmen had been engaged at Amaniganj Sub Station. 10. After considering the aforesaid testimony and documentary evidence the Prescribed Authority opined that the testimony of the employer witnesses was not truthful. No documentary evidence had been produced by them nor by the employer, inspite of the fact, that the attendance register and log-book/sheets had been maintained for the period in question as admitted by the witnesses, whereas the workmen had produced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. Based on aforesaid the claim was allowed. 11. As regards the petitioner of petition No.1903 (MS) of 2010 filed M/s Garg Trading Company is concerned, the workmen had clearly stated before the Prescribed Authority that they had never worked under the said Company nor had they sought any relief against it. Based on aforesaid the claim was allowed. 11. As regards the petitioner of petition No.1903 (MS) of 2010 filed M/s Garg Trading Company is concerned, the workmen had clearly stated before the Prescribed Authority that they had never worked under the said Company nor had they sought any relief against it. The company also stated so. There was no evidence to show to the contrary. In fact in the decision of the Prescribed Authority also the said Company has not been made liable and it is only the stand of the Corporation which has been considered. However, as pointed out by Sri Lav Kumar Agrawal, as the operative portion was not very clear, therefore, the Company had filed a writ petition challenging the award so as to avoid liability, if any. In view of the reasons aforesaid the said Company was not liable as it could not be proved that it had engaged the workmen. Merely because the said Company had been engaged for a certain period for operating the Sub Station by itself does not prove the engagement of workmen by it specially in view of evidence discussed by the Prescribed Authority which shows the engagement of workmen by the officials of the Corporation. 12. As regards the other writ petition, the contention of the Power Corporation was firstly, that there was a ban on such appointment; secondly, that no appointment letter was produced by the workmen; thirdly, the earlier claim of the workmen under the U.P. Industrial Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 having been rejected on 30.03.2007 on the ground of non existence of master and servant relation ship the second claim was barred by the principle of resjudicata; fourthly, workers in the Corporation are recruited through the Service Commission, therefore, there was no question of engagement of workmen; fifthly, the claim was time barred in view of 1st proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act, 1936 and the findings were perverse, without considering the relevant evidence and sixthly, the engagement of the workmen, if any, was through contractor. 13. It was not the case of the workmen that they were regularly appointed. As regards the ban on appointment on daily wages this itself does not prove that no daily wager was engaged by its officers specially in view of evidence considered by the Prescribed Authority. 13. It was not the case of the workmen that they were regularly appointed. As regards the ban on appointment on daily wages this itself does not prove that no daily wager was engaged by its officers specially in view of evidence considered by the Prescribed Authority. As regards the plea that the engagement of the workmen, if any, was through contractor, no such evidence was led by the Corporation which could establish such engagement of the Contractor for the entire period in question and of the workmen by the Contractor. The two documents which have been filed as Annexures 9 and 10 to this writ petition as already stated are only for the period August, 2006 and May 2007 to July 2007. Moreover, if, a Contractor had been engaged who in turn had engaged the workmen then considering the nature of the duties to be performed at the Sub Station it is unbelievable that the Contractor would not inform the Corporation about the personnel engaged and their qualification, as, operation of a Sub Station would require certain kind of personnel and surely the Corporation would not leave such matters to the whims of the Contractor. No such evidence has been led. 14. The appointment on daily wages or muster roll does not involve issuance of a formal letter of appointment as it was not a regular appointment against a substantive post. Documentary proof in the form of log sheet/book and attendance register, showing the attendance of the workmen, assignment of duties to them etc. are sufficient proof in this regard. The workmen did adduce such evidence whereas the Corporation did not produce the relevant attendance register and log-book/sheet of the relevant period to belie the claim and/or to prove that the copies filed by the workmen were forged and fabricated documents. This is, inspite of having sufficient opportunity for doing so. No explanation has been offered by the Corporation in this regard. Moreover, there was no reason for the Prescribed Authority to disbelieve the testimony of Ram Bahor who was an erstwhile employee of the Power Corporation. 15. This is, inspite of having sufficient opportunity for doing so. No explanation has been offered by the Corporation in this regard. Moreover, there was no reason for the Prescribed Authority to disbelieve the testimony of Ram Bahor who was an erstwhile employee of the Power Corporation. 15. As regards the plea of res-judicata with respect this Court has gone through the decision dated 30.03.2007 passed in T.P.W-1/06 under the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 and what it finds is that the claim based on untimely payment of wages to the workman was declined only on the ground that there was a dispute with regard to existence of master and servant relation ship which was an Industrial Dispute but there was no adjudication of this dispute therein. The claim was rejected only on account of existence of the dispute meaning thereby unless and until this dispute was agitated and adjudicated upon by the appropriate forum, the proceedings under the Act, 1978 were not maintainable, therefore, the plea of res-judicata is clearly misconceived. In fact it is consequent to the said decision that the proceedings were initiated by the workmen under the Act, 1936 clearly disclosing the earlier proceedings. This plea is also, therefore, liable rejected. 16. As regards the contention that the claim was time barred certainly under the 1st proviso to Section 16(2), a claim for the preceding 12 months alone was maintainable subject to the second proviso which states that any application may be admitted after the period of said 12 months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. Even if, a strict view is taken in the matter, then the claim of wages would at best be confined to a period of 12 months prior to the filing of the claim under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act, 1936 but this would not result in rejection of the claim in its entirety. 17. Another objection was raised by the counsel towards the fag end of his arguments that the amount of wages had wrongly been calculated by the Prescribed Authority. 17. Another objection was raised by the counsel towards the fag end of his arguments that the amount of wages had wrongly been calculated by the Prescribed Authority. As the workmen had themselves claimed wages at the rate of Rs.86/-per day which comes to Rs.2064 per month, and to Rs.24792/-per annum the award of Rs.30,960 per year to the workmen is without any factual basis, consequently, the total amount of Rs.3,10,100/-is also erroneous. The Court has perused paragraph 10 of the claim of the workmen which speaks of payment of wages at the rate of Rs.86/-per day. On being confronted the counsel for the workmen could not satisfy the validity of the impugned decision on this aspect. 18. In view of above, while the impugned decision dated 09.02.2010 is sustained, the operative portion is modified to the extent that the workmen shall be entitled to wages for the period of 12 months immediately preceding the claim filed by them under Section 15 of the Act, 1936 @Rs.86/-per day and four times compensation ordered by the Prescribed Authority shall also be paid to them accordingly. The imposition of Rs.500/-as costs of litigation is maintained. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the Power Corporation within one month, failing which, recovery proceedings shall be initiated as per law for recovery of the said amount. 19. Writ petition No. 1616 (MS) of 2010 is allowed in part. 20. Writ petition No. 1903 (MS) of 2010 is allowed to the extent that the petitioner therein is not liable to pay any wages under the decision of the Prescribed Authority dated 09.02.2010.