1 16 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.14/2008. Assistant Engineer, J.V.V.N.L., Taranagar Vs. Mahendra Singh Date of Order :: 11th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Manoj Bhandari ] Mr. Sushil Bishnoi ], for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 12.09.2007 as passed by the learned District Judge, Churu in Appeal No.3/2004 preferred against the order dated 14.11.2002 as made by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu in Application No.PWA/158/1997. It is noticed from the material placed on record that the learned Authority, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has found that the applicant had worked with the non-applicant (present petitioner) from 18.10.1996 to 21.07.1997 and has found him entitled to Rs.14,140/- towards wages for this period @ Rs.60/- per day; and after adjustment of Rs.1,260/- already paid, has held him 2 entitled for Rs.12,880/- towards due wages. The Authority has allowed an amount of Rs.25,760/- comprising of Rs. 12,880/- towards principal amount of wages and another Rs.12,880/- towards compensation for deprivation of the applicant of his due wages. The petitioner urged before the learned Appellate Authority that the workman had worked only from 06.06.1997 to 30.06.1997 as LDC and was paid minimum wages at Rs.60/-; that he had not worked for 240 days and his services were terminated; that the termination order was set aside in the reference and the writ proceedings thereagainst were pending before the High Court. The learned District Judge has observed that no such contention was urged pointing out any illegality in the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority concerned. The District Judge has also found that the Authority has not allowed salary as was available for a Lower Division Clerk but has allowed only minimum wages at Rs.60/- per day that was in accord with law and it has also been noticed that the amount had already been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to question as being highly excessive the amount awarded to the workman by the learned Authority towards compensation. The submission remains bereft of foundation when no such submission was even made before the learned Appellate 3 Authority; and such a contention does not make out any case for interference in the orders impugned. Even otherwise, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, for deprivation of wages from 18.10.1996 to 21.07.1997, if the workman has been allowed compensation at Rs.12,880/- after noticing his sufferings and the adverse circumstances he had through, the order so passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act remains unexceptionable. There is no substance in this revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. Mohan/