S.K.Keshote, J. - (1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Authority under the Act, 1936) dated March 7, 1984, under which the application filed by him for the order of the payment of the salary to him for the period from September 2, 1980 to December 28, 1981 has been dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by time. The petitioner has come up with the case that the employer M/s. Krishna Enterprises, Industrial Area, Hardwar, District Saharanpur through its proprietor Smt. Krishna has illegally withheld the salary of the petitioner for the period September 2, 1980 to December 28, 1981. The petitioner had filed an application to the said effect before the Authority under the Act 1936 on April 23, 1982 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application. The petitioner filed number of documents and also got himself examined in support of his claim. He has made a statement on May 25, 1982 that the respondent-employer had collected many persons in connection with her plots and in the presence of those persons she has stated that the payment of the wages will be made by the employer to the petitioner within a week. The petitioner has stated that he made a complaint on February 24, 1982 to the Labour Inspector, Hardwar in connection with withholding of his wages by the employer. The Labour Inspector, Hardwar by his letter dated July 17, 1982 informed the petitioner that the said authority has written letter to his employer for the payment of his wages but no communication has been received by it and the petitioner has been advised by the said letter of the Labour Inspector, Hardwar to file a case under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The petitioner accordingly submitted an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the respondent No. 1 on April 23, 1982. The petitioner further stated that no oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the employer to contest his application for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed another document i.e. letter of the employer dated June 25, 1981 which has been sent to him in response to his letter dated June 15, 1981, in which the liability to make payment of his wages has been admitted and he was assured that as soon as erection of building and installation of Bituminised Water Machine is completed his all claims shall be paid in lump sum. The Authority under the Act 1936 has discarded all the documents filed by the petitioner only on the ground that those documents have not been proved. Some of the documents, which have been exhibited by the petitioner, have also been discarded on the ground that the same has not been proved.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Authority under the Act 1936 has committed a serious illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner as sufficient cause has been made out for filing of the application after limitation. Next, he has argued that the said authority has discarded the documentary evidence on the grounds which are not tenable in the eyes of law. Strict rule of evidence is not applicable. The documents have been produced and the same have also been exhibited. The order of the said Authority which has been given by it by excluding the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner is perverse and arbitrary on the face of it.
(3.) Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the said Authority has not considered an important fact that whole of the claim of the petitioner was not barred by time. At the most the application could have been rejected on the ground of limitation in respect of the claim which has become barred by time in case the delay in filing thereof would have been considered to be there.;