IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 89 / 2003 Uttaranchal Pay Jal Nigam, Through its Executive Engineer, Pithoragarh ……. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Payments of Wages Act, 1936, Haldwani, Nainital & Others ……. Respondents With Writ Petition (M/S) 613/2002 U.P. Jal Nigam, Through its Executive Engineer, Pithoragarh ….. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Payments of Wages Act, 1936, Haldwani, Nainital & Others ……. Respondents Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. 13th February, 2009 Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Since the controversy involved in both the petitions are common based on similar set of facts and evidence, hence these petitions are being decided together by the common order. 2. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 3 Ajab Singh Papalchiyal had filed two petitions before the Prescribed Authority for the payment of the remaining wages due towards the respondents under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 3. In petition no. 103 of 1994, it was alleged that the respondents are employed by the appellant for carrying the cement, pipes and other materials for the construction of ITBP water project in between 16th May, 1991 to 5th December, 1991. It was further alleged that they earned a sum of Rs. 2,26,025/- as wages and the appellant had only paid a sum of Rs. 1,58,000/- and a sum of Rs. 68,825/- remained outstanding towards the appellant and the deduction of the said amount was illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. 4. In claim petition no. 104 of 1994, they also discharged the same work from 30th March, 1990 to 31st October, 1990 and a sum of Rs. 2,15,320/- was due towards the appellant and they paid a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- to the respondents and the remaining amount of Rs. 61,320/- was not paid and it was illegally deducted by the appellant. 5. Both the claim petitions were made before the learned Prescribed Authority and the learned Prescribed Authority allowed both the petitions and held that a sum of Rs. 68,825/- was payable to the respondents in claim petition no. 103 of 1994 and a sum of Rs. 61,320/- was payble by the appellant in claim petition no. 104 of 1994. He also awarded a cost/ damages of Rs. 500/- in both the petitions. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, a statutory appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority / Additional District Judge, after going through the entire evidence adduced by the parties, held that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority is consistent with the evidence and he did not find any infirmity with the findings. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. He also held that the appellant has no right to deduct the said amount from the wages of the respondents. The execution of the work was to be completed by 31st October or 5th December, which was not a period of snowfall in the area. The plea was found to be not substantiated by the evidence, hence these petitions were filed. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. I have been taken through the record by the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that both the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority did not reflect the correct finding. 9. I have gone through the entire record and the evidence and I find that the findings which have been recorded concurrently by both the court below are consistent with the evidence. I do not find any infirmity in the findings. No perversity has been brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the appellant so that it may be held that the findings are perverse. Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to point out that Ajab Singh who is said to be a MATE is a Gram Pradhan and he connot discharge the function of a MATE. It is not a statutory bar under the provisions of the Act that any Gram Pradhan is barred from earning the wages for his livelihood. As such, the contention has no force. I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. No other points were raised before me. Resultantly, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed summarily and are dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 13.2.2009 Prabodh