JUDGMENT : I.A. No.5102 of 2023 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for waiving the cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed upon the respondents pursuant to the order dated 9th May, 2023. 2. It has been stated in the instant application that when the matter was called out on 09.05.2023, since the name of the conducting law officer was not appearing in the supplementary cause list dated 9th May, 2023, therefore, none had appeared. 3. This Court in the aforesaid premise has imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in favour of Advocates’ Clerk Association, High Court of Jharkhand while granting further time to file the counter affidavit. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since the name of the counsel representing the State respondent was not there in the daily cause list, therefore, the appearance could not be made and hence the cost imposed may be waived. 5. This Court, on consideration of the reason aforesaid, is of the view that the cause shown therein, i.e., reference of the name of the conducting law officer in the daily cause list dated 09.05.2023 was not there, deems it fit and proper to recall the part of the order dated 9th May, 2023, whereby and whereunder the cost of Rs.25,000/- was directed to be deposited making a condition for acceptance of the counter affidavit. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 9th May, 2023 is modified to the above extent. 7. The cost of Rs.25,000/- which was directed to be deposited is hereby recalled. 8. I.A. No.5102 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No.58 of 2020 9. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order impugned dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the respondent no.6–the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the payment of Wages Act, Hazaribagh, by which the said Authority has directed the petitioner and others to make payment of Rs.1,32,579/- to respondent No.2. 10. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, reads as under: 11. 10. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, reads as under: 11. It is the case of the writ petitioner that under the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act, 2005”) work was sanctioned for construction of a pond (200x100x10) on the land of Pankaj Munda (the respondent no.3) in village Chokad, P.O. Maganpur under Gola Block District-Ramgarh with the estimated cost of Rs.4,57,600/- in the financial year 2009-10. Later on, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh vide letter no.334 dated 24th February, 2010 revised the cost of said pond to the extent of Rs.2,73,600/-. Thereafter, the construction work of the said pond was started on 26th December, 2009 and Sri Vikash Kumar, Junior Engineer, Gola Block was assigned with the said work. Further, as per the measurement done by the concerned Junior Engineer, Sri Vikash Kumar, the total work was completed to the extent of Rs.1,52,203/- only and as per Muster Roll the completed work was found to the extent of Rs.1,48,992/- only which was accordingly paid to the concerned labourers. The further case of the writ petitioner is that he was posted on deputation in Gola Block in terms of the order dated 31st January, 2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and he joined at Gola Block on deputation on 6th February, 2010 as Junior Engineer but he was not entrusted with work of construction of pond in question, rather the said work was being supervised by Sri Vikash Kumar, Junior Engineer which would be evident from the materials available on record. The respondent no.2 on behalf of 175 other labourers filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the payment of Wages Act by which she made claim of Rs.1,32,579/- as well as compensation to the extent of Rs.3,97,739/- towards their dues wages for the period 21st April, 2010 to 2nd May, 2010 on the ground that in the aforesaid period she worked on daily basis for the construction of pond but they have not paid their wages for the aforesaid period. 12. Thereafter, P.W. Case No.01 of 2011 was filed by the respondent no.2 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under payment of Wages Act, 1936 on 15th February, 2011. 12. Thereafter, P.W. Case No.01 of 2011 was filed by the respondent no.2 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under payment of Wages Act, 1936 on 15th February, 2011. During pendency of the aforesaid case, the respondent no.2 also filed a complaint before the Authorities of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 about non-payment of wages to them i.e., on the same issue, which was pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the payment of Wages Act. On 15th September, 2011 the Lokpal, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 has passed the order for payment of due wages to the respondent no.2 and 176 other labourers. 13. It is further case of the writ-petitioner that after passing of the aforesaid order by the Lokpal, MGNREGA on 15th September, 2011, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, issued notice to the respondents and others by which they were directed to submit their show cause. The petitioner was also issued show-cause by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed his reply to the show-cause wherein it has been stated that neither he was involved in the construction of the work nor he made any entry in the measurement book, rather the said work was being done by another Junior Engineer. 14. Thereafter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the payment of Wages Act has passed an order on 30th July, 2012, whereby and whereunder the claim of the respondent no.2 and other labourers was allowed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the writ-petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2013 but the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has refused to interfere with the order passed by the concerned authority, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 15. The fact demonstrates that the writ-petitioner has joined his service as a Junior Engineer in the Gola Block on 6th February, 2010. It appears that prior to his posting in the said Block as Junior Engineer, a proceeding was initiated under the Payment of Wages Act, wherein, the appellant has also been impleaded as party to the proceeding making claim therein for issuance of direction upon the erring officials to make payment as per the entitlement. It appears that prior to his posting in the said Block as Junior Engineer, a proceeding was initiated under the Payment of Wages Act, wherein, the appellant has also been impleaded as party to the proceeding making claim therein for issuance of direction upon the erring officials to make payment as per the entitlement. The appellant has been called upon to explain as to why the liability, be not casted upon him. It is the case of the writ-petitioner that he had appeared in the proceeding and brought to the notice of the adjudicatory authority that while the work in question had commenced he was not posted in the concerned block, since, the work in question was for the period from 26th December, 2009 to 27th February, 2010 while he has been posted on transfer to the concerned Block on 6th February, 2010 i.e., subsequent to the closure of the work under the Act, 2005 in the said block. The writ-petitioner had brought to the notice the aforesaid reply dated 6th June, 2011 and 28th April, 2012. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by declaring not to interfere with the decision dated 30th July, 2012, against which, the present appeal. 16. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order regarding casting liability upon the appellant/writ-petitioner in the impression of the fact that the writ-petitioner was not posted as Junior Engineer for the period in question, cannot be considered as the said factual plea was neither raised nor decided by the respondent no.6 while passing the impugned order dated 30th July, 2012. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the order has not called upon the counter from the State Government in order to have a reply regarding the date of posting of the appellant in the concerned Block in the capacity of Junior Engineer. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the order has not called upon the counter from the State Government in order to have a reply regarding the date of posting of the appellant in the concerned Block in the capacity of Junior Engineer. 18. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge, while giving finding that the fact was not raised, has not appreciated the specific pleading made to that effect as under paragraph-28 of the writ petition supported by the documents, i.e., the reply dated 6th June, 2011 and 28th April, 2011 and in that view of the matter, it was necessary to have a reply on the specific pleading made in this regard by the writ-petitioner and after perusing the same, if the finding would have been there that the aforesaid fact is incorrect and then if the order would have been passed that the aforesaid fact has not been raised, then the matter would have been different but that is not the fact herein, since once the pleading has been made it requires response from the respondents before coming to any conclusion either way. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in that view of the matter, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from infirmity and, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 20. The matter was heard by this Court on 2nd December, 2022. 21. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. S.C. I appearing for the respondent – State of Jharkhand, has submitted that no counter affidavit was filed before the learned Writ Court, therefore, he has sought for four weeks’ time to file para wise reply. 22. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid submission, has allowed time to file counter. 23. Counter affidavit in terms of the aforesaid order has been filed on behalf of the State on 24th June, 2023, wherein, the fact about the posting of the writ-petitioner in the capacity of the Junior Engineer on transfer w.e.f. 6th February, 2010 is not being disputed. 24. 23. Counter affidavit in terms of the aforesaid order has been filed on behalf of the State on 24th June, 2023, wherein, the fact about the posting of the writ-petitioner in the capacity of the Junior Engineer on transfer w.e.f. 6th February, 2010 is not being disputed. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted by referring to the paragraphs-7, 8 and 9 that the posting of the writ-petitioner was at the fag end of the work, since, the work has been done from 26th December, 2009 to 27th February, 2010 and the work has been assigned to one Vikash Kumar Mandal who was posted and designated as Junior Engineer MNREGA at Gola Block. It has been stated therein that the entry in the measurement book for the said project was done by the said Vikash Mandal, the then Junior Engineer. 25. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also considered the pleadings made in the writ petition memorandum of appeal and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 26. The admitted fact herein is that the Labourer, for whose benefits, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been enacted, being aggrieved with the non-payment/less payment of the wages, had made complaint under Section 15 thereof before the Authorized Officer-cum-The Deputy Labour Commissioner impleading therein the appellant, as a Junior Engineer, as one of the party in the proceeding, since, he was posted in the said block during operation period of the work in question. 27. It appears from the record that the writ-petitioner had been called upon to justify as to why the liability of making payment of minimum wages be not casted upon him. 28. The appellant had submitted its reply, as would appear from the reply dated 6th June, 2011 and 28th April, 2012, in support of statement made at paragraph 28 of the writ-petition denying the liability on the ground that the aforesaid work had never been assigned to the appellant, rather it was assigned to one Prakash Kumar Mandal, who was posted as Junior Engineer, MNREGA. 29. The aforesaid fact has not been taken into consideration by the adjudicatory authority and the liability has also been casted upon the writ-petitioner by passing the order on 30th July, 2012. 30. 29. The aforesaid fact has not been taken into consideration by the adjudicatory authority and the liability has also been casted upon the writ-petitioner by passing the order on 30th July, 2012. 30. The same was challenged before the learned Single Judge by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India taking the ground that since the writ-petitioner was not posted as Junior Engineer for the concerned work, therefore, no liability can be casted upon him. But the learned Single Judge has not accepted the aforesaid ground on the ground that the said factual fact was not raised before the respondent no.6, the adjudicator. The undisputed fact, as it appears from the impugned order, that no counter was called upon from the State. The aforesaid fact has also been admitted by the State, as would appear from the order passed by this Court dated 2nd December, 2022. For ready reference, the part of the order dated 2nd December, 2022 is being referred as under: “… … … 9. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that no counter affidavit was filed before the learned writ court, therefore, he has sought for four weeks’ time to file parawise response. 10. Considering the same, time as sought for, is allowed. 11. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.….” 31. The question which requires consideration by this Court is, as to whether the Court of Law can arrive at a finding adverse to the pleading without inviting any objection from the concerned respondent. 32. The law is well settled that it is incumbent upon the Court of Law that before recording a finding against the authority due consideration of the response of another party is to be given, meaning thereby, if any pleading is being made in the plaint or the writ petition the response thereto is to be sought for from the concerned court and only then, on consideration of the pleading of the rival parties, the finding is to be recorded. 33. 33. Here in the instant case, admittedly, the respondent-State was not called upon to file counter affidavit but the learned Single Judge discarding the specific pleading made at paragraph 28 of the writ petition supported by the relevant document that the reply dated 6th June, 2011 and 28th April, 2012 has refused to interfere with the impugned order by discarding the ground taken on behalf of the appellant that he was not posted as Junior Engineer for the concerned work on the ground that the said factual plea was neither raised nor decided by the respondent no.6. 34. This Court has failed to understand that from where such finding has been arrived at, since, the pleading to that effect is there as under paragraph-28 of the writ petition and as such, the learned Single Judge while recording the finding that the said factual plea was neither raised nor decided by the respondent no.6, according to our considered view, cannot be said to be a correct finding. 35. Further, the observation so made that the said factual plea was neither raised and if plea was not raised then where is the question of the same to be decided by the respondent no.6. The decision of an issue or the plea is only if the plea will be raised before the concerned court or the quasi-judicial functionary. 36. Here the fact is otherwise, as would appear from paragraph 28 of the writ petition, that the fact about his posting in the concerned Block was w.e.f. 6th February, 2010. Further, it is the admitted case of the State that the said work was not assigned to the appellant, rather, it was assigned to one Vikash Kumar Mandal. Such statement was given on verification of the measurement book, wherein, entry has been made by the said Vikash Kumar Mandal, as such, when it is the admitted case of the State that the said work was not assigned to the writ-petitioner, then the finding so recorded or casting liability upon the writ-petitioner, cannot be said to be correct. 37. This Court for better appreciation, deems it fit and proper to refer paragraphs-7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit dated 23rd June, 2023 which read as under : “7. 37. This Court for better appreciation, deems it fit and proper to refer paragraphs-7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit dated 23rd June, 2023 which read as under : “7. That it is stated and submitted that pursuant to the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 2nd December, 2022 an enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer, Gola and it was found that during the relevant date and time of occurrence the said Rakesh Kumar has not been assigned any work and it is apparent from his date of joining i.e., on 06.02.2010. 8. That it is also apparent from the letter bearing no.222 dated 6.03.2010, the said Chokad Panchayat was allotted to said Rakesh Kumar from 6.3.2010 onwards. 9. That it is further stated and submitted that, the work has been done from 26.12.2009 to 27.02.2010 by beneficiary committee whose Chairperson was Late Pankaj Munda of Chokad Panchayat. The said MNREGA work has been supervised by Sri Vikash Kumar Mondal who was postedand designated as Junior Engineer MNREGA at Gola Block and carried out the function of Junior Engineer in Chokad Panchayat and all the relevant document which is the subject matter of dispute was carried by said Vikash Kumar Mandal. It appears from the letter no.744 dated 20.06.2011 that the entry in the measurement book for the said project was done by said Vikash Kumar Mandal.” 38. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge requires interference for the reason stated hereinabove. 39. The second question would be that Payment of Wages Act is the beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted to protect the interest of the marginal section of the society i.e., the labourer, therefore, the technicality has got no place in extending the benefits in favour of the labourer. 40. The fault committed by any party to the proceeding or even the quasi-judicial authority, the same can have no detrimental effect upon the interest of the beneficiary for whom the act has been enacted. 41. It appears from the party position, as would appear from the order passed by the authority appended as Annexure-10 that the said Vikash Kumar Mandal was not party to the proceeding. 41. It appears from the party position, as would appear from the order passed by the authority appended as Annexure-10 that the said Vikash Kumar Mandal was not party to the proceeding. If the reply of the appellant would have been considered by the adjudicator, then at the very same time, the said Vikash Kumar Mandal would have been impleaded as party and the order casting liability also upon him, could have been passed but having not done so, a serious error has been committed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner while adjudicating the issue. 42. Accordingly, the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2013, is hereby quashed and set aside. 43. In the result the instant appeal stands allowed. 44. This Court, in view of the aforesaid reason also, is of the view that the order dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority, Hazaribagh is required to be quashed and set aside. 45. In consequence thereof, the writ petition also stands allowed. 46. The order dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority, Hazaribagh, is hereby quashed and set aside. 47. The matter is being remitted before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority, Hazaribagh to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties including the Government officials/the Authority, who had performed the work under the MNREGA scheme for the period from 26th December, 2009 to 27th February, 2010 before casting liability. 48. Let such adjudication be made, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 49. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. 50. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.