IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.939 of 1998 Date of decision: 5th February, 2010 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad … Petitioner Versus Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) 66 employees of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act with a prayer that they should be paid Rs.1391.30 for the period from 1st October, 1993 to 31st October, 1993 and 1st November, 1993 to 9th November, 1993. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act framed the following issue: “Whether the applicants are entitled to the claimed amount, if so to what extent ?” It has surfaced in the evidence that the employees were transferred from HUDA to Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. Vishesh Kumar, Assistant from the Establishment Branch, in cross examination, admitted that daily-wage employees, who had proceeded on strike and were absent on 29th September, 1993, their services were terminated. However, this witness further admitted in cross examination that Haryana Govt. had issued instructions for treating the strike period as a leave of Civil Revision No.939 of 1998 kind due and had issued Notification Ex.RW1/10. Once the Govt. had issued the Notification and it was applicable to the Corporation, there was no justification for the Corporation to agitate before the Authorities below and deny the workers their legitimate due. The order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was made subject matter of appeal. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and had dismissed the appeal. On 6th January, 1999, a Single Bench of this Court admitted the present revision petition, however vacated the interim order and further issued direction to the petitioner Corporation to release the amount due to the private respondents within three months. Ten years are going to elapse. Still the Corporation after paying the amount is persisting with the present revision petition. Once the Govt. had issued Notification to the effect that the period of strike is to be treated as leave of kind due, then the Corporation has done nothing but to incur wasteful expenditure by paying legal remunerations. Those, who are vested with the public funds, have to be judicious enough, not to persist with the uncalled for litigation. This Court would have imposed exemplary cost, but will refrain to do so, as it will again burden the public exchequer. The present revision petition is dismissed, being devoid of merit. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 5, 2010 rps 2