IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4450 of 2009 Date of decision:17.07.2009 J.E. Kuldip Singh ...Petitioner versus The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Sirsa ...Respondents and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) CM No.11595 of 2009 Application is allowed as prayed for. CM No.11596 of 2009 Application is allowed. Additional affidavit is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.4450 of 2009 1. The writ petition is challenged at the instance of Shri Kuldip Singh, who is described in his personal capacity, but who worked as Junior Engineer with the Panchayat, Sirsa, before the authorities under Civil Writ Petition No.4450 of 2009 - 2 - the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners before the Authority, who were employees for the project undertaken by the panchayat, had laid a claim stating that the wages due to them had not been paid. The statement had been filed by respondent No.1 contending that for the period of engagement by the panchayat, the amount had been paid and the receipt had also been given by the employees and yet another work which had been undertaken was laying C.C.Road which was done by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sirsa. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer was also added as a party before the Authority. Both the respondents filed the written statements but they did not contest the matter. The authority therefore relied on the oral testimony of the employees and passed an order directing Rs.22,530/- to be deposited within 30 days. 2. The order is challenged only at the instance of first respondent before the Authority, namely Shri Kuldip Singh and the second respondent before the authority had accepted the order and he has not challenged the same. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the amount due for the project undertaken by the panchayat was already paid and for the subsequent project undertaken through the second respondent before the authority, the petitioner cannot be made liable and documentary evidence had been filed but not established by any evidence to the effect that even muster roll maintained in the name of the work C.C.Road did not contain the names of the employees. The consideration of the document in the absence of any explanation or evidence given by the second respondent will not be appropriate. As Civil Writ Petition No.4450 of 2009 - 3 - observed by me, it is only the first respondent who has come challenging the order of the Authority before this Court. His non-appearance before the authority is said to be on account of his ailment. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the writ petition itself was filed after considerable delay of 1 ½ years after the order was passed. I do not think there were sufficient reasons still if the order is vitiated, it is vitiated only in the sense that the petition before the authority has been filed against Shri Kuldip Singh, although the work was not a personal one for his benefits. He was only undertaking the work on behalf of the panchayat and the order by the Authority will have the consequence of casting a personal liability. The order should be so read as to make it workable and to conform to law. 3. Consequently, the order against the first respondent in the individual capacity, who is the petitioner before this Court, is set aside. The employees shall have a right of recovery against the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sirsa. The order impugned is modified to this extent only of exonerating the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.07.2009 sanjeev