C. R. No. 7698 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7698 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 23, 2009 Jaswant Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Jai Parkash .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Jaswant Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing judgment dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal and also order dated 27.07.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Authority, Circle Karnal, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short – the Act). The petitioner filed application under Section 12 (ii) of the Act alleging that he was employed as driver by the respondent at Rs.1200/- per month salary, but the respondent paid him Rs.500/- only and had been telling him that he would pay the balance amount in lump sum so that the amount could be of some use to the petitioner. However, ultimately, the respondent did not pay the said amount. The petitioner remained employed with respondent since November 1992 till March 1996. C. R. No. 7698 of 2009 2 The Authority, under the Act, vide order dated 27.07.2006 (Annexure P-3), dismissed the application filed by the petitioner being barred by limitation. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Section 15 of the Act provides that the application had to be presented within 12 months from the date, on which deduction from the wages was made, or from the date, on which payment of wages was due to be made. However, application under the Act could be entertained after the period of 12 months, if the applicant satisfied the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. In the instant case, the wages were due for the period from November 1992 till March 1996. The wages became due every month. For November 1992, the wages became due by 07.12.1992. Claim for the said wages could be lodged till 07.12.1993. Similarly, claim for wages of last month of March 1996 could be lodged till 07.04.1997. However, the application by the petitioner before the Authority was presented on 23.07.1999. For the wages of first month i.e. November 1992, the application was delayed by more than 5½ years, whereas even for the wages of last month i.e. March 1996, the application was delayed by more than 02 years and 03 months. There is, therefore, no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent finding of both the Authorities below that the application moved by the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar and others vs. Firm Kurban Hussain Taiyab Ali and others reported as AIR 1996 MADHYA PRADESH 151, contended that formal application C. R. No. 7698 of 2009 3 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the case is not necessary. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sujana Ram vs. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and others reported as 1995 II LLJ 524, wherein it was observed that failure to consider documents in support of application for condonation of delay in filing claim before the Authority under the Act, on the ground that such documents have not been proved, is erroneous because strict rule of Evidence Act is not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, judgments in the aforesaid cases have no applicability to the instant case because the petitioner, in his application (Annexure P-1) filed before the Authority, has not mentioned any ground whatsoever for the highly belated application except that the petitioner had been approaching the respondent time and again, who had been assuring him to pay the amount. However, this cannot be a sufficient cause for condonation of long delay of many years in filing the application before the Authority. In fact, the period of 12 months has been provided to enable the claimant to pursue his claim before the employer and if the employer does not grant the claim of the claimant within the said period of 12 months, the employee should lodge the claim before the Authority within prescribed period of 12 months. Mere assurance of the employer that he would pay the amount, can, by no stretch, be said to be sufficient cause for delay in filing the application before the Authority under the Act and that too, for delay of several years. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. December 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE