N THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.589 (M/S) of 2003 State of Uttarakhand and another . .……… Petitioners Versus Deputy Labour Commissioner and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the petitioners and Shri Jagdish Singh Bist, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Laxman Singh (respondent No.3) and 25 other workers filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act alleging wrongful deduction of wages from April, 1994 to March, 1995. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,342/-. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act which was dismissed. The petitioners has now filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that it is not necessary to dwell upon the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is sufficient for this Court to decide the matter on one ground itself. The Court finds that the wages has been paid to the workers @ Rs.45 and Rs.80 per day. Admittedly, the workers in question were engaged to do manual work either as an unskilled workman or as a skilled workman for the construction of a road. The Government orders have been placed for that relevant period which indicates that an unskilled worker is entitled to Rs.35 per day and a skilled worker is entitled to Rs.37.50 per day. There is no evidence, which has been brought on record to indicate that an unskilled or a skilled workman is entitled to Rs.45 and Rs.80 per day respectively. 2 Consequently, on this short ground, the order of the Prescribed Authority cannot be maintained and is set aside. Consequently, the appellate order is also set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Any amount so deposited by the petitioners, if it has not been disbursed to the workers so far, shall remain in such deposit until further adjudication is made. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 04.12.2009 LSR/Shiv