C.W.P.No.9392 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9392 of 2006 Date of Decision: 20.03.2008. Anil Kumar .......Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of impugned award dated 20.04.2006 (Annexure P/3) whereby the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 at Yamuna Nagar, ordered that respondent No.2 is entitled to get difference of wages and has been held entitled to an amount of Rs.33,484.88 Ps. The petitioner-employer had not made the payment of wages in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government. Respondent No.2 had submitted an application stating therein that he was working with the petitioner for the last four years. He was appointed on 01.01.1995 and he was getting Rs.200/- per month as wages and after every six months, he used to get 3 quintals wheat and he used to C.W.P.No.9392 of 2006 2 work for 12 hours every day with the employer. The authorities under the Minimum Wages Act had noticed that from 01.01.1995 to 30.06.1995, the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government for agricultural worker was Rs.1351/- per month, similarly from 01.07.1995 to 31.12.1995, it was Rs.1366/- , from 01.01.1996 to 30.06.1996, it was Rs.1443.66/-, from 01.07.1996 to 31.12.1996 it was Rs.1503/-, from 01.01.1997 to 30.06.1997, it was Rs.1574.74/-, from 01.07.1997 to 31.12.1997, it was Rs.1624.46/-, from 01.01.1998 to 30.06.1998, it was Rs.1667.40/-, from 01.07.1998 to 31.12.1998, it was Rs.1755.54/- and from 01.01.1999, the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government was Rs.1927.30/- per month. The petitioner-employer in the present writ petition had stated before the authority that the workman-respondent had not done any work with the petitioner. Rather father of the workman Rulia Ram had visiting terms with the petitioner and he had borrowed Rs.25,000/- from the father of the petitioner-employer. He further stated that on the basis of this, a suit has been instituted. Therefore, a false claim has been made. The respondent-applicant led evidence and produced Om Parkash as AW-1, Roshal Lal as AW-2, Somi Devi as AW-3 and he himself appeared as AW- 4. The petitioner-respondent produced Gautam Sharma as RW-1, Kuwar Pal as RW-2, Baldev Singh Saini as RW-3 and himself appeared as RW-4. In the impugned award, the competent authority has held as under:- “The respondent had not produced any material evidence on record. Moreover, the witnesses produced by the respondent had stated that the respondent used to employ the workers on daily wages and some times on contract”. We have perused the impugned award Annexure P/3. The authority has given the findings of fact. In a writ petition, we cannot re- C.W.P.No.9392 of 2006 3 appreciate the evidence and disturb finding of fact. There is no material before us to differ with the findings arrived at by the competent authority in the impugned award, as the same has been rightly arrived at by appreciating the evidence and is just and reasonable. Therefore, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE March 20, 2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) seema JUDGE