Civil Writ Petition No. 2253 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 2253 of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.4.2008 Jaspal Kaur and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mrs. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for respondent No.3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Sukh Ram, respondent No.2, had filed claim petition (Annexure P8) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Circle District Sirsa (for short “the Authority”) wherein he has stated that he was employed as a labourer by Jallaur Singh deceased as agricultural labourer in the land measuring 20 killas for producing the crop for Swani 2005 to Harhi 2005 and as wages he was entitled to return of 1/5th share of the crop. It has been stated that Jallaur Singh died on 22.7.2005. It has been further stated that legal heirs of Jallaur Singh, who are petitioners in the present writ petition, are his employers Civil Writ Petition No. 2253 of 2006 2 under Section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short “the Act 1948”). He made a grievance that he was paid less wages for the agricultural work rendered by him as in the State of Haryana, daily wages has been fixed as Rs.85/- or 1/4th share of the total crop produced and, therefore, he claimed that from 1.5.2003 to 30.4.2005 he was entitled to Rs.52,450/-. The Authority on 6.10.2005 decided to proceed ex-parte. A perusal of order dated 6.10.2005 (Annexure P6) reveals that on 15.9.2005 again registered notices were sent to the petitioners and on 6.10.2005 report of refusal was received. Before the Authority, Sukh Ram, respondent No.3 appeared as PW.1, Man Phool, Nambardar, appeared as PW.2, Gopal appeared as PW.4, Chand Singh appeared as PW.5 and Chanan appeared as PW.6. They supported the case of the applicant-respondent No.3 and the Authority held that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.52,440/-. The present writ petition has been filed praying that award of the Authority be set aside as the same is ex-parte. A plea has also been raised that respondent No.3 was not employed as agricultural labourer but he was tenant. We have persistently asked learned counsel for the petitioners to show any revenue record where respondent No.3 has been recorded as tenant. There being none, learned counsel has been unable to satisfy us. The Authority has been sending the registered notices to the petitioners. On the last notice, a report of refusal has been received. Civil Writ Petition No. 2253 of 2006 3 Respondent No.3 is resident of same village to which the family of landlord belongs. Nambardar of the village and other villagers appeared in evidence. It cannot be assumed that the petitioners were not aware of the litigation. They have specifically denied to receive the notices. Respondent No.3, who is agricultural labourer, has been running from pillar to post since 2005. He has also attended the proceedings before the Labour Conciliation Officer. The stand taken before us is that respondent No.3 is not entitled for any compensation as he was tenant and on this count the petitioners are unable to satisfy us. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 1, 2008 “DK”