HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7275 (ms) OF 2001 The State of U.P. and another. ……….Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the State. 14.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder is present for the petitioners/State. None appears for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 4.7.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun, Respondent No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 32 of 1995 filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Briefly stated, the workmen/ Azad Singh respondent no. 2 filed a reference case bearing No. 32 of 1995 Azad Singh Vs. Sri Prayag Dutt Joshi before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Dehradun (now in Uttarakhand). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer, Yamuna Construction Division-I, Dehradun and Sri Prayag Dutt Joshi (Contractor) entered into an agreement being Agreement No. 3/E.E./89-90 for the construction of drain on both sides of link road at Vikasnagar from Km. 0.00 to 0.04. As per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid agreement, the drain work was to be started on 25.5.1989 and was to be completed within extended time upto 30.6.1990. The contractor completed the work on 25.6.1990 and the final payment was made to him in the month of July, 1990. The petitioner has submitted that the security money deposited by the Contractor under the said agreement was to be kept by the department for making adjustment of claim against the contractor for a period of six months after the completion of the work and the same i.e. Rs. 25,000/- was released in favour of the contractor in the month of January, 1991. On 27.5.1995, the petitioners received a notice from Labour Court, Dehradun regarding the claim petition filed before it by the respondent no. 2 Sri Azad Singh under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In reply to that notice, the petitioners filed a written statement stating therein that it was the sole responsibility of the Contractor to engage labours, to take work from them and further to make payment to them. The contractor (Prayag Dutt Joshi) did not file any written statement before the Labour Court, Dehradun as such there is complete silence regarding the claim of the claimant Sri Azad Singh. 5. The Labour Court while deciding the said reference has recorded a finding that there is no dispute regarding the payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day and commencement of the work from 1.7.1989 to 15.5.1990 by the respondent no. 2 Azad Singh. Finding has further been recorded that the work from the respondent no. 2 has been taken by the Executive Engineer through the Contractor, but it was the duty of the authority concerned to verify at the time of payment of final bill as to whether the payment to the workers/labourers has been made or not. After recording the said finding, a direction has been given to the Executive Engineer, Yamuna Nirman Khand I, Dehradun to pay a sum of Rs. 8,050/- for the work done by him for the period 1.7.1989 to 15.5.1990. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Labour Court, Dehradun has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioners to file departmental documents and adducing the evidence in support of the case and illegally allowed the claim petition against the petitioners. 7. I am not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners as there is no need of filing any document, since it is already admitted that the respondent no. 2 has worked for the period from 1.7.1989 to 15.5.1990 at the rate of Rs. 25/-. It is also admitted that the petitioners were the chief employer and being a Chief Employer, it was their duty to verify about the payment to the workers/ labourers. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour, Dehradun on 4.7.1995 and the same is confirmed 9. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 14.7.2008 Rathour