1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2399/ 1996 (Agand Lal Yogi Vs. District Judge & others) Date of Order August 4, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr.R.P.Garg with Mr.T.C.Vyas for the petitioner. Mr. S.D.Khaspuria Additional Government Counsel. * * * * This writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 12th December, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Sawaimadhopur by which he set aside the order dated 30th July, 1992 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority Sawaim adhopur in PWA Case No.37/ 91. Petitioner through Om Prakash Sharma moved petition under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Authority Act on 1.5.1991 and claimed that he has not been paid wages from August 1990 to October 1990 which comes to Rs.1166/ -. Respondents No.3 and 4 submitted reply before the Payment of Wages Authority and denied allegations of the petition and further submitted that petitioner has not worked under them from August 1990 to October 2 1990, hence, petition may be dismissed. After recording evidence and hearing parties the Payment of Wages Authority ordered the respondents to pay wages of Rs.1716/ - alongwith com pensation of Rs.1716/ - to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the respondents No.3 and 4 before the District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, who passed the impugned order, setting aside the order of Payment of Wages Authority, Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not been paid wages from August 1990 to October 1990 by the respondents and order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority was in accordance with law even then learned District Judge has committed error in setting order of Payment of Wages Authority, hence the writ petition may be accepted and order of Payment of Wages Authority may be restored, whereas learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law, hence, the petition may be dismissed. As per claim petition, petitioner claimed Rs.1166/ - as wages from August 1990 to October 1990 3 whereas learned Payment of Wages Authority has allowed claim of Rs.1716/ - as per schedule annexed with claim petition holding that difference in amount is clerical mistake. Apparently this cannot be said to be clerical mistake as the petitioner claimed only Rs.1166/ - as arrear of wages for three months and he could not have been granted Rs.1716/ - as arrears of wages. Order of Payment of Wages Authority reveals that petitioner has not produced any document in support of his claim petition. He filed affidavit in which he mentioned that he worked on Banas River Pipe Line from August 1990 and October 1990 and worked in Rajbagh City in September 1990. He also submitted that he was employed by Fitter-Gulam Mohammed and he requested for payment of wages to Fitter-Gulam Mohammed and Junior Engineer-Ashok Kumar Sharma. He has no where mentioned in his evidence that he signed muster-roles. Other persons Prabhu, Felu and Kailash Chandra, who submitted affidavits in support of petitioner, have submitted that petitioner worked with them, but this fact is not corroborated by muster roles presented by respondents in reply to the writ petition. PW-4 Kailash Chandra submitted in his affidavit that petitioner worked 4 with him on Banas River Pipe Line from August 1990 and October 1990 and he further admitted that he has received wages, but petitioner has not been paid wages for that period. Respondent has submitted copy of muster roles with his reply which reveals that Kailash Chandra alongwith Om Prakash were employed as labourer at Rs.22/ - per day in the month of September 1990 to October 1990 and Kailash Chandra alone was employed as labourer in the month of August 1990. They have already received payment. Had petitioner also been employed with Kailash Chandra, his name must have been shown in the muster role. Petitioner has not summoned muster roles which contains name of petitioner employed as labourer with Assistant Enginer, PHED. Petitioner has not submitted any documentry evidence pertaining to receipt of payment from December 1989 to July 1990 which could have proved that petitioner was paid without his name has been shown in the muster roles. Merely because Prabhu, Felu and Kailash Chandra have submitted in their affidavits that petitioner also worked with them, in the absence of any documentry evidence it cannot be presumed that 5 petitioner has worked under Junior Engineer from August 1990 to October 1990. Petitioner has not filed claim petition against Junior Engineer. Learned District Judge has rightly observed that respondents No.3 and 4 do not fall within purview of employer of the petitioner and has rightly accepted appeal of the respondents. Respondent No.5 was not a party before the Payment of Wages Authority as well as District Judge and in such circumstances respondent No.5 could not have been impleaded as respondent in this writ petition. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order pass ed by the District Judge is in accordance with law and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( K.S. CHAUDHARI ) ,J. t eek am