- (1.) Sadhu Ram was working as Lower Division Clerk in Operation Sub Division No. 1, Haryana State Electricity Board, Karnal, (in short 'the Board') during the month of April, 1975. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division No. 1, Karnal posted one Bal Krishan, Lower Division Clerk, against the post held by Sadhu Ram, vide office order No. 29/LDC dated 11.3.1975. The Sub-Divisional Officer further directed Sadhu Ram to take his further order/decision from the Superintending Engineer, Karnal. In view of the aforesaid letter, Sadhu Ram stood relieved from duties w.e.f 11.4.1975. According to Sadhu Ram, he reported to the Superintending Engineer, Karnal Circle, for obtaining his posting, but on one pretext or the other, none was issued. He per force served a notice on 14.4.1975. On receipt of the notice, there was an inter se correspondence between the Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Karnal, and the Superintending Engineer. One such correspondence is Annexure P-1, a letter from the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, in which he denied the assertion made by Sadhu Ram that his services were terminated by him. His explanation was that Sadhu Ram was merely directed to the address of the S.D.O. 'OP' No. 1, Karnal, for further decision. Receiving no response from the respondent-Sadhu Ram moved the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (briefly 'the Act'). He also made a application under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act for condonation of delay. In his application, he stated that he had not been removed, dismissed or suspended from service and, therefore, he was entitled to wages from 12.4.1975 to 15.2.1978. A claim was also made to the declared bonus. Thus, in all, he claimed a sum of Rs. 16,060/- The said application was contested by the respondents, who in their written statement, took up the plea that services of Sadhu Ram were terminated on 11.4.1975 and as such, he was not an employee after 11.4.1975. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Authority under the Act :- (i) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present claim application ? (2) Whether the claim application is within limitation ? (3) Whether the claim of the applicant is justified ? (4) Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed by him in his claim application ? If so, to what amount ? (5) Relief. On appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the Authority under the Act allowed the application and held Sadhu Ram to be entitled to the amount claimed by him in his claim application. It also found that it had the authority to entertain and decide the claim application. The claim application was found to be within limitation. The Board preferred an appeal before the appellate Authority, who by the impugned order (Annexure P-6) set aside the order under appeal and in the consequence thereof, dismissed the claim application of Sadhu Ram. Sadhu Ram has now challenged the order of the appellate Authority by way of this writ petition.
(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, Sadhu Ram died and on a application moved by his widow she was substituted in his place.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. The Appellate Authority dismissed the claim application only on the ground that Sadhu Ram had not been able to prove sufficient cause for getting condoned the inordinate delay in filing the claim application. For this, the appellate Authority found that document mark 'A' could not be relied upon and read in evidence by the Authority under the Act for condoning the delay. This reasoning of the appellate Authority cannot be accepted for the reason that document, mark 'A' was produced by the respondents themselves with the written statement and, therefore, Sadhu Ram was not required to prove that document. Respondents no where denied the existence of the document. In this document, which is also attached to this writ petition as Annexure P-1 the respondents have clearly admitted that services of the petitioner were not terminated. From this, the Authority under the Act rightly concluded that Sadhu Ram had been working on his post till April 1976 and he was not removed from service. No order relating to termination of services of Sadhu Ram was brought on record before the Authority under the Act or in the written statement filed to the present writ petition. The Authority under the Act rightly found that the claim of Sadhu Ram was within limitation. Otherwise also, the appellate Authority ought not to have interfered in the discretion exercised by the Authority under the Act, The Authority under the Act the discretion under second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act to condone the delay. The delay having been condoned on the appreciation of evidence, it was not open to the Appellate Authority to interfere in the discretion unless the discretion so exercised was found to be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with costs. Annexure P-6 is requested and in consequence thereof, the order of the Authority under the Act, Annexure P-5 is maintained. Costs are assessed at Rs. 1000/-.;