SBCWP NO.1909/09. {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1909/2009. Sub Divisional Engineer Telecoms, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur Versus Smt.Uganti Devi & Anr. Date of order:- July 31, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Tej Prakash Sharma for the petitioner. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the Sub Divisional Engineer Telecoms, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur against the order passed on 25/7/2001 by the Payment of Wages Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order dated 2/12/2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur dismissing appeal against the formal order. 2) Shri Tej Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the learned courts below have recorded finding about the working of respondent Smt.Uganti Devi contrary to the material on record. Affidavits produced by the petitioner in SBCWP NO.1909/09. {2} rebuttal of the evidence of the respondent were not properly considered by the Payment of Wages Authority as well as the learned Additional District Judge. Respondent was not engaged in the capacity of daily wage/class-IV employees during the period claimed by her. Burden of proof lay on the respondent to show that she was discharged from service. 3) Upon hearing the learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record as well as the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur, I find that the fact with regard to working of respondent Smt.Uganti Devi was found proved by the Prescribed Authority as well as learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur on appreciation of evidence. Apart from the evidence of Smt.Uganti Devi herself as PW1, PW2 Pradeep Kumar also supported her claim, who have stated that Smt.Uganti Devi was working in the Telephone Exchange where he was posted. Similarly, PW4 Tarachand also additionally gave evidence to the same effect. The evidence which the respondent produced by way of DW1 B.K. Sharma and DW2 B.L. Jain was also considered by the authority. On analysis of evidence, payment of wages authority recorded a finding of fact that wages of respondent Smt.Uganti Devi for a month came to a sum of Rs.1560/- and SBCWP NO.1909/09. {3} therefore required the petitioner to pay to her wages of ten months in a sum of Rs.15,600/- and the wages for the period from September 1999 to August 2000 and also awarded penalty for deduction of wages. Learned Additional District Judge has considered the arguments raised by the petitioner so long the validity of the order passed by the prescribed authority question of working of the respondent is a question of fact which has concurrently been decided against the petitioner. 4) I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders especially when the amount involved is also very meager and the evidence is conclusively against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil