1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6655/1994. : : The Executive Engineer PHED Vs. Daya Ram : : Date of Order 13.10.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.B.L.Awasthi, Addl.Government Counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1.2.1994 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur. The Labour Court by the aforesaid order allowed the application of respondent-workman filed under Section 33 c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shri B.L.Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel argued that the respondent-workman was never appointed on the post of Pump Driver and that he was merely appointed as Beldar on daily wages of Rs.14/- on pipe line work of village Satai. The Labour Court erred in law in directing payment of the wages of the post of pump driver to him for the period of 5.5.1988 to 5.1.1989. It was contended that there was absolutely no basis for awarding the wages of 2 the post of pump driver as the respondent failed to adduce any evidence to prove his appointment on such post. The certificate of Junior Engineer produced by the respondent that he was working as pump driver subsequently from 5.5.1988 to 5.1.1989 was incompetent inasmuch as Junior Engineer had no authority to issue such certificate. In any case, when this certificate was for the period from 1.6.1988 to 5.1.1989, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded wages for the period from 5.5.1988 to 5.1.1989. Having heard the learned Additional Government Counsel and perused the impugned order, I find that the Labour Court was persuaded to uphold the claim of the respondent-workman on the basis of certificate issued by the Junior Engineer under whose supervision the respondent was engaged in the work of laying pipe line. The aforesaid certificate was exhibited as Ex.W/1 wherein the Junior Engineer certified the working of the respondent from 1.6.1988 to 5.1.1989. The respondent-workman asserted that he was so working from 5.5.1988 and not from 1.6.1988. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was absolutely no basis for the Labour Court for passing the impugned order. Merely because the certificate was for the period from 1.6.1988 and not from 5.5.1988, interference by this Court 3 would not be justified in a matter where total claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs.5,156/- only has been allowed. I do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Labour Court. In the result, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.S/13.