- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 2, Arun Kumar was an employee of petitioner-school. His services were terminated on March 31, 2001. Thereafter, on June 23, 2004, he filed an application before prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages act, 1936, which was registered as P. W. A. Case no. 60 of 2004. In the said application, he claimed that from April 13, 1991, he was appointed as O. S. D, in the petitioner-school and he was paid less wages than the wages required to be paid in accordance with the recommendations of V Pay Commission w. e. f. April 1, 1996. It was staled that the difference came to Rs. 6,75,918/- (about Rs. 6,80,000/- ). Ten times compensation was also claimed.
(2.) IT has been held in U. P. Basic Parishad, allahabad v. Prescribed Authority under payment of Wages Act, 2006-III-LLJ-417 (All)and R. D. S. O. Basic School v. Prescribed authority, 1992 (2) U. P. L. B. E. C. 1472 that payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not applicable to educational institutions.
(3.) THROUGH order dated December 20, 2004, Prescribed Authority under Payment of wages Act condoned the delay. The only ground mentioned in the said order for condoning the delay was that since September, 2001 till March, 2004, respondent No. 2 gave several applications to the management. This is absolutely no ground for condoning the delay. In any case for delay since 1996 till 2001 when services of respondent No. 2 were terminated, there was absolutely no explanation. Against order dated December 20, 2004, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by District Judge, bijnore on February 15, 2005. I find that both the orders are utterly illegal as neither any ground for delay was taken nor any finding was recorded. The Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that filing repeated representations is no ground to condone the delay and it cannot keep a course of action alive. 1. C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and mining 2009-II-LLJ-1 (SC) 2. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan 2006-II-LLJ-421 (SC);