IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 2 of 2004 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Gonda Singh …. Petitioner Versus Kabal Singh ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),Amb, District Una whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs.700/- on account of wages has been rejected. 2. The claimant filed the application under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the authority concerned in which he made very cryptic allegations that the respondent Kabal Singh had got work done from him for construction of ‘Verandah’ in the year 2 1989 and agreed to make payment of Rs.700/-. The claimant worked for three days and constructed the ‘Verandah’ of the house of the respondent but thereafter due to non availability of the material could not complete the construction. The respondent allegedly did not make any payment to the claimant. Thereafter, in the year 1994, the respondent again asked the claimant whether he had collected the material and asked him to construct the ‘Verandah’. Thereafter, the complainant completed the Verandah of the house of the respondent but payment of Rs.700/-, as agreed, was not paid to him. 3. Prior to the filing of this application before the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, the claimant had filed an application before the Labour Inspector on 16.12.1994 in which the only allegation made was that the respondent had got work done from the claimant and had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.700/- but had not paid this amount. This application was totally silent as to the details of the work and the time when the work was done. 4. The stand of the respondent was that he had never engaged the applicant for construction of 3 Verandah of his house and the whole story had been concocted to harass him. A specific plea was taken that there is an old enmity between the parties and long standing litigation is going on between the both sides and, therefore, the application has been filed only to harass the respondent. The learned Sub Divisional Officer who is the authority under the Payment of Wages Act recorded evidence of the parties. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Sub Divisional Officer came to the following conclusions:- 1. That the claimant had filed a case against the father of the respondent before the Panchayat claiming that some payment for supply of loudspeaker had not been made to him. 2. The claimant also admitted that he had filed one complaint against the brother of the respondent for recovery of some amount before the Panchayat. 4 3. The claimant clearly admitted that he does not have good relations with the family of the respondent nor he is on talking terms with them. 4. Gulab Nabi who was examined as PW/2 only stated that he had seen the claimant working in a house but he could not give the name of the owner of the house. Kabal Singh, respondent denied that he had ever engaged the claimant and examined RW/2, Narinder Pal who stated that he had worked for the construction of the Verandah and that he had never seen the applicant working in the house of the respondent. On this evidence, the authority came to the conclusion that the claimant had failed to prove his case. 5. This is a pure finding of fact based on evidence which cannot be disturbed in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. November 22, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge