D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 890/2008 Chella Ram v. Director, Ayurvedik Department, Ajmer & ors. Date of order : 25.11.2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA ... Mr. D.K.Parihar for the appellant. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, assailing the validity of the order dated 10.3.1992 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been allowed, and the order impugned in the writ petition dated 10.3.1992 awarding difference of wages in favour of the appellant quantified at Rs. 5,042/- and compensation of Rs. 10,084/- stands set aside. It is to be noticed that the appellant herein was engaged for cleaning and sweeping at Ayurvedic Hospital, Ren District Nagaur. However, his services were brought to an end w.e.f. 1.4.1989. The writ petition bearing no. 1494/1989 preferred by the appellant assailing the validity of his termination from service was decided by this Court on 6.11.1989 with direction that he may be allowed to work as a part time sweeper on the same wages on which he was working earlier to his termination and his services will be treated as continuous and will be paid all his back wages from 1.4.1989 to 6.11.1989. Yet another writ petition bearing no. 274/1989 preferred by the appellant seeking direction against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, for payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.11.1990 with direction that the appellant herein was admittedly working as a part time employee and coming from weaker section of the society, he should be given maximum pay as mentioned in the Appendix 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules i.e. Rs. 150/- per month. The Court further observed that it shall be open for the respondent herein to take four hours work from the writ petitioner, the appellant herein and in case any future vacancies of sweeper occur, his case will be considered on priority basis looking to his long services in the hospital. It is thus apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner was working only as a part time employee for four hours a day and this question stands concluded by the decision of this Court. However, the appellant preferred an application under section 15(2) of the Act of 1936 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming that he is working in the hospital for eight hours, however, the wages for the period 1.3.1990 to 28.2.1991 amounting to Rs. 12,356/- at the minimum wage rate sanctioned by the Government have not been paid to him. The Payment of Wages Authority relying upon oral statements of the appellant herein arrived at the finding that he was working for eight hours and therefore, he was entitled for the wages accordingly. The learned Single Judge after due examination of material on record and so also the earlier judgment of this Court in Writ Petition nos. 1494/1989 and 274/1989 found that the question with regard to petitioner's working for four hours in a day having been decided by this court in the earlier writ petition, the same will operate as res judicata, therefore, the appellant herein is not entitled for wages as determined by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It is not disputed before us that in the earlier writ petitions the appellant had taken a categorical stand that he was working as a part time employee and only for a period of four hours a day. Moreover, while deciding the writ petition no. 274/1989 this Court had categorically observed that it will be open for the respondents to take four hours' duty from the appellant. Thus the question with regard to working hours of the petitioner as aforesaid having been decided by this Court and attained finality, the same shall operate as res judicata. In this view of the matter, on the oral testimony of the appellant, respondent authority was not justified in recording the finding that the appellant was working for eight hours a day, ignoring the finding arrived at by this Court in its earlier judgments. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. In the result, the special appeal is dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA), J. (NARAYAN ROY),C.J. mathur/