IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 29037 of 1990) Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, 6 Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow & others. ………………….Petitioners. Versus Additional District Judge, Nainital and others. ………Respondents Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2. 5th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.8.1990 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Jeewan Singh filed an application under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act against the appellants requesting that his wages w.e.f. 1.10.1983 to the day of the presentation of the application i.e. 29.6.1985 have not been paid by the petitioner, therefore, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is due upon the petitioners. Notices were served upon the petitioners, but to no avail. Since the application was not moved with the prescribed time, therefor,e an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for condonation of delay was also moved by Jeewan Singh. In the application it was alleged that the delay in presenting the claim under Section 15(3) has been made due to the fact that the petitioners said that they will make the payment but the same were made hence the delay be condoned. 3. The petitioners contested the claim of the respondent and it was mentioned that the application has been presented on wrong facts. It was stated that the respondent was engaged as a Work Supervisor in the department purely on temporary baiss and his services were terminable at the pleasure of the employer. On 29.8.,1983 the respondent submitted his resignation on the ground of ill health and his resignation was accepted. Thereafter, the respondent did not turn up to work and since 1.10.1988 he is not in the service of the department. Both the parties adduced their respective documentary as well as oral evidence. 4. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration, the evidence available on record, by recording concurrent finding, the appellate Corrt dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Since, the courts below have recorded finding of fact, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The orders passed by the courts below dated 10.8.1990 and 3.11.1986 are affirmed. 6. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 5th August, 2008 Rathour