Civil Writ Petition No. 11170 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11170 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: September 10 , 2010 Hoshiarpur National Transport (P) Ltd. .....Petitioner VERSUS Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Sharma,Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two writ petitions No.11170 of 2009 and 10102 of 2009 as common questions of law are involved in both the petitions. In C.W.P. No. 10102 of 2009, the only difference is that the amount of back wages is Rs.41548/- and also there is no confusion about the typographical mistake. Respondent No.2 had moved an application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act- cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. His claim was that he had worked with the petitioner-Company as a Driver, but he was paid @ Rs.1700/- per month and therefore, he was paid less wages amounting to Rs.55,639/-. The petitioner-Company had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 11170 of 2009 -2- written statement in response to the same taking up a plea that the respondent No.2 had never worked with them as alleged and further prayed that application be dismissed with cost. The prayer of respondent No.2 was allowed with a direction that a sum of Rs.55,639/- as claimed be paid by the petitioner-Company. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company has come forward to challenge the same. Counsel for the petitioner-Company has made two fold submissions before me. He would first contend that the application under Section 20 (2) of the Act is not maintainable. He contends that the respondent/workman namely Surinder Singh did not work with the petitioner-Company and as such, there is no question of any payment of wages. Counsel also points out that the case was of Surinder Singh, but the facts in the order do not relate to his case. It is mentioned that this application was moved by Prem Singh. Counsel for the petitioner states that some connected matters were decided by the Authority and that is why some typographical mistake was made otherwise the issues and the evidence relates to the case of Surinder Singh only. The issue that the application under Section 20(2) is not maintainable, was never raised before the Authority concerned. Therefore, to go into this aspect it being raised for the first time before the Court in the writ petition would not be appropriate. The submission that the petitioner never worked with the petitioner- Company, can also not be accepted as in the stand taken before the Authority, it is conceded that the respondent/workman used to be Civil Writ Petition No. 11170 of 2009 -3- employed, but whenever there was any work. The Authority is justified in drawing inference that some material is required to prove how the payment was made for the period when the respondent/workman used to be employed. It was generally stated that payment was being made on the basis of vouchers. No such voucher was produced. It was accordingly, found by drawing adverse inference that the documents were withheld from the Authority. The view is well reasoned. No case for interference is, thus, made out. Dismissed. September 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE