CW 622/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.622/2010 M/s. Gupta Contractors Versus Presiding Officer, Payment of Wages Act & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.623/2010 M/s. Gupta Contractors Versus Presiding Officer, Payment of Wages Act & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 04/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Pankaj Gupta, for petitioner *** Both the petitions have been filed by petitioner assailing two separate orders passed by Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 dt.29th December, 2009. Respondent-workmen Nos.2 to 58 filed application for payment of their salary and over time wages by filing application u/s.15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Prescribed Authority. Initially after written statement was filed by the petitioner who indisputably is their Contractor under whom respondent-workmen had worked, filed two misc. applications for taking certain documents on record which were rejected by Prescribed Authority vide order dt.11th August, 2009. Against which, the petitioner preferred CWP No.10210/09 and while issuing notice, by interim order this Court directed the Prescribed Authority to take note of the documents referred CW 622/2010 [2] to in two misc. applications and may proceed further in accordance with law. In compliance of interim order of this Court, the Prescribed Authority vide order dt.30/09/09 has taken on record the documents referred to by the petitioner in two misc. applications, of which reference has been made by this Court in CWP No.10210/09. It has also been observed by the Prescribed Authority under its order dt.30th September, 2009 that the relevant records for the period from 01/01/09 to 28/02/09 may summon from SMS Hospital for adjudication of the dispute. It appears that thereafter, at the stage when the Officer of SMS Hospital was examined, the present petitioner also cross-examined the witness and at this stage, petitioner filed further application for summoning of the records from SMS Hospital in view of earlier order of the Prescribed Authority dt.30th September, 2009. Both the applications were rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dt.29th December, 2009 and matter has been posted for hearing after closing the defence evidence. Counsel for petitioner submits that in absence of relevant records being summoned from SMS Hospital, it will be difficult for the CW 622/2010 [3] present petitioner to submit his contention and the record which they intend to summon from SMS Hospital is certainly relevant for adjudication of the dispute and their application filed before the Prescribed Authority has been arbitrarily rejected without assigning reason vide order dt.29th December, 2009 by passing a non-speaking order. Such action of the authority is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel further submits that defence has also been closed and the matter has been posted for final hearing, indisputably caused prejudice to the petitioner. Submission made by Counsel is without substance for the reason that application initially filed by petitioner for taking documents on record which at one stage was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, but under the interim order of this Court dt.26/08/2009 passed in CWP No.10210/09, the Prescribed Authority has taken relevant documents mentioned in two misc. applications filed by petitioner on record and proceeded further in accordance with law and vide order dt.30th September, 2009 summoned the Officer of SMS Hospital along with records, as desired and only thereafter, CW 622/2010 [4] opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the Officer of SMS Hospital. If relevant record despite order of the Prescribed Authority was not placed for perusal, certainly adverse inference can be drawn, but the Prescribed Authority was only supposed to take note of documents, which comes on record for proper adjudication of the dispute and what is being urged by Counsel for petitioner about prejudice being caused in absence of relevant record from SMS Hospital, if not summoned, may be his apprehension, but nothing can be presumed at this stage, particularly, when dispute is still pending adjudication before the Prescribed Authority and obviously, the burden is initially on the person who approaches the Court/Prescribed Authority and if he is able to discharge its burden, onus will be shifted upon the respondents to justify its action. So far as submission made with respect to passing non-speaking order which is impugned in the instant petition is concerned, suffice it to say that ordinarily the reason must forthcome in the order itself. However, that cannot be a solitary reason to interfere and this Court can also examine from the records as to whether action of the authority is justified or not. At CW 622/2010 [5] the same time, this court certainly find substance that right of the petitioner to submit his defence cannot be struck off by the Prescribed Authority in an arbitrary manner. Consequently, both the writ petitions stand disposed of while upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, with the direction to the Prescribed Authority to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead their evidence in support thereof and proceed further, thereafter, in accordance with law. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA622CW2010 4-2.doc