IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2600 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 37673 of 1998) Jeewan Singh ………………….Petitioner. Versus Special Judge, Nainital and others. ………Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 &4. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 5th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.5.1991, 14.2.1992 passed by the respondent no. 2 and judgment dated 31.3.1998 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 2, 3 and 5 to the writ petition respectively). 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working with the respondent from 28.12.1978 as Work Supervisor. The respondent Authorities withheld the salary due to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1983. On 31.12.1984, the respondent no. 4 asked the petitioner no to pursue his legal proceedings as his claim for payment of salary is under consideration. Thereafter, when nothing was done, the petitioner filed a Case No. P.W.A. 7 of 1985 claiming relief for the payment of wages w.e.f. 1.10.1983 to 28.6.1985 the date of filing of the aforesaid case under Section 15(3) of Payment of Wages Act. On 3.11.1986, Prescribed Authority decreed the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary @ Rs. 391/- per month and total 2 8197.95 by recording a finding that the petitioner is an employee of the respondents and the salary as claimed was due. Being aggrieved against the said judgment, respondents filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1937 being Appeal No. 68 of 1986 U.P. Jal Nigam and others Vs. Shri Jiwan Singh. The said appeal was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judges, Nainital vide judgment and order dated 10.8.1990. After the decree being passed in favour of the petitioner, the salary due to the petitioner was withheld by the respondents. Since it was open in the decree passed by the Prescribed Authority to raise the claim for salary for the further unpaid salary and further appeal against order dated 3.11.1986 having been decided on 10.8.1990. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 15 of the Act along with an application for condonation of delay, if any. The said application was contested by the respondents by filing an objection alleging therein that the claim is barred by time in view of the provisions as contained under Section 15 (3). Petitioner filed an objection to the delay condonation application filed by the respondents to the delay condonation application stating therein that respondent no. 4 is not competent to file objection on behalf of other respondents and further pleaded that since despite of the decree dated 3.11.1986, salary was not paid and an appeal against the said order was decided on 10.8.1990, the P.W.A. No. 96 of 1991 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. On 25.5.1991, respondent no. 2 disposed of the application for delay condonation holding that the claim for wages for the period 30.6.1985 to 31.11.1989 is barred by limitation and the claim for further period of 1.12.1989 to 30.11.1990 will 3 be decided on merits of the case. Further vide judgment and order dated 14.2.1992, respondent no. 2 dismissed the claim of the petitioner for the payment of wages w.e.f. 30.6.1985 to 30.11.1990. Being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 14.2.1992, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of wages Act on 1.4.1992. 3. Perused the order passed by the Special Judge, Nainital on 31.3.1998. Special Judge has passed the order without going into the merits of the case, but has decided the case on technicalities. 4. Since, the Special Judge has not passed the order on merits, therefore, the order-dated 31.3.1998 passed by the Special Judge is quashed. 5. The matter is sent back to the Special Judge, Nainital for deciding the same afresh on merits after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties as expeditiously as possible. 6. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 5th August, 2008 Rathour