Civil Revision No.1639 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1639 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 9, 2011 Gram Panchayat of village Bhaiyapur and another .....Petitioners v. Rajesh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Malik-I, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.6603-04-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexure A-1. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.1639 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code'), against order dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Authority under the Act, Rohtak, and judgment dated 10.1.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, as appellate Authority under the Act against the said order passed by the Authority under the Act dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent/applicant was appointed as Village Chowkidar by appellant Civil Revision No.1639 of 2011(O&M) -2- no.1-respondent no.1 on salary of `400/- per month since 17.11.2003. Wages of Chowkidar was enhanced from `400/- per month to `1,000/- per month by the Government of Haryana. However, petitioners stopped paying him wages from 1.5.2005 despite the fact that he was continuing in discharging his duties as village Chowkidar. Lambardar of the village used to compel him to perform his personal domestic work without paying him any extra amount and when he refused to oblige him, petitioners wanted to remove him from the post of Chowkidar. Hence, he filed the application for payment of wages for the period w.e.f. 1.5.2005. The application was contested by present petitioners. Issues were framed by learned Authority under the Act and after giving both the parties opportunities to lead evidence, the application was decided vide impugned order and the petitioners were directed to pay `2,800/- wages from August 2005 to February 2006 and `20,000/- from March 2006 to 30.11.2007. Aggrieved against the said order, present petitioners filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, which was also dismissed by him, by observing as under:- “10. Vide present appeal, the appellants/respondents have assailed the impugned order passed by the competent authority under the payment of wages Act, Rohtak. Vide said order the respondent/applicant has been held entitled to the wages w.e.f. August 2005 to 30.11.2007. It has been inter alia, contended for the appellants/respondent that the applicant has worked upto August 2005 only and till the said period honorarium @ `400/- per month has already been paid to him. After August 2005 respondent/applicant never worked as chowkidar and he has been removed. Also, it has been contended that `1000/- was never fixed as salary of chowkidar/applicant. Now the only point to be decided in this appeal is whether respondent/applicant was removed in August 2005 and he is not entitled for wages from August 2005 onwards. 11. To prove the fact that applicant was removed as chowkidar, no material or evidence at all has been proved by the appellant/respondent to draw the inference to the said Civil Revision No.1639 of 2011(O&M) -3- extent. Mere pleadings in the absence of any evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the applicant was removed as chowkidar after August 2005 and he has not worked thereafter in the said capacity. 12. Regarding the contention that respondent/applicant was paid honorarium only and not the wages, the evidence on the file is otherwise. One of the witnesses examined namely Smt.Saroj Balhara (PE6) from the office of BDPO Rohtak has proved the record pertaining to the respondent/applicant. The said witness nowhere deposed that respondent/applicant was being paid honorarium. Rather, she has deposed that the wages of the respondent/applicant was `400/- per month. From March 2006 the wages of the Chowkidar was revised as `1000/- per month and last payment was made to respondent/applicant in August 2005. Further she has deposed that after July 2005 till 13.11.2007, no payment of wages was made to respondent/applicant. No evidence has been led by the appellant/respondents to contradict the evidence of PW6 as discussed above. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that the applicant was discharging his duty as chowkidar even after August 2005. As such, it is clear that whatsoever has been pleaded and contended for the appellants/respondents has not been proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 13. Resultantly, no interference is warranted in the findings so recorded by the competent authority under the payment of wages Act, Rohtak in the impugned judgment, thus the appeal stands dismissed with costs. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly. Lower court record with one copy of this judgment be sent back and appeal file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Chowkidar did not work for the period for which he was allowed wages by the Courts below. However, the said plea has been duly considered by both Civil Revision No.1639 of 2011(O&M) -4- the courts and however, as no satisfactory evidence could be adduced by present petitioners, the said plea was not accepted. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge