CHUNNI LAL Vs. RAIGAR DHARAMSHALA TRUST
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Raigar Dharamshala Trust
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) For the last several occasions, learned counsel for the respondents did not appear in the case. Today also, none is present on behalf of the respondents, despite called repeatedly. Heard Mr. Lalit Miglani, advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. Briefly stated that in the year 1983, the petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar with respondent nos. 1 and 2. His services were terminated with effect from July 18, 2005. The petitioner moved an application before the Prescribed Authority/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar under Payment of Wages Act, seeking direction to the respondents to pay him wages with effect from March 1, 2005 to July 18, 2005 @ Rs. 1,300/- per month. In said proceedings, the respondents filed their written statement in which they admitted that the petitioner was being paid wages @ Rs. 1,300/- per month. In their written statement, the respondents also asserted that wages for the period of three months was not paid to the petitioner, as for last sometime, the petitioner had committed irregularities and his behaviour was not satisfactory for which explanation was called from him, which was not found satisfactory. The petitioner was also transferred to Delhi Head Office, but he did not join there. Application of the petitioner was considered by the Prescribed Authority and was rejected. Appeal filed by the petitioner, against said Rejection Order, was also rejected by the District Judge, Haridwar vide impugned order dated October 12, 2007. The Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Haridwar dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was transferred for his misconduct and he did not join his post at that place and for this reason, the respondents rightly stopped his wages for a period of three months.
(2.) I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the documents annexed with the writ petition.
(3.) In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit it has been averred by the respondents that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but no satisfactory reply was given by him, but seeing his past record of service, on his consent, he was transferred to Delhi Head Office, but he did not join there, for which his wages were withheld by passing a proposal in a meeting for termination of his services. Thus, it is clear that the respondents themselves have admitted that the petitioner had worked with them. It is not the case of the respondents that when the petitioner did not join at Delhi Office, then his salary was stopped. The fact that the petitioner worked during the period March 1, 2005 to July 18, 2005 has also not been denied by the respondents. In such circumstances, I do not agree with the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the District Judge, Dehradun.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.