J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, Jalandhar, dated September 19, 1988, whereby the application filed by the employer for shifting the onus of the issue was dismissed.
(2.) THE workman filed a petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. On the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed, (i) whether the application is barred by time? and (ii) whether the deductions are justified? An application was moved on behalf of the employer to shift the onus of the said issues on the workman. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Authority primarily on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, the onus of the issues have been rightly placed on the employer. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the whole approach of the learned Authority was wrong and illegal and, thus, he has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is for the workman to prove that the alleged, deductions were not justified as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act and similarly whether the application was within the time or not was for the workman to prove because admittedly he is claiming wages with effect from May 1985, whereas the application has been filed on September 10, 1986, i.e., beyond a period of one year. In support of his contention, he referred to 1982 Labour Industrial Cases 551 and Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Company, 1979 (2) LLJ. 194. In Shankar's case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the rules, of fair play demand where a party seeks to establish a contention which if proved would be sufficient to deny relief to the opposite side, such a contention has to be specifically pleaded and then proved. But if there is no pleading there is no question of proving something which is not pleaded. This is very elementary. The Supreme Court further observed that "can it for a moment be suggested that this elementary principle does not inform industrial adjudication? The answer must be an emphatic "no". Thus, keeping into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden of the two issues should have been on the workman, who has approached the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It is for the workman to prove that the alleged deductions have been wrongly made by the employer. Consequently, this petition succeeds; the impugned order is set aside and the burden of both the issues is shifted on the workman. There will be no order as to costs.
(3.) SINCE further proceedings were stayed at the time of motion hearing by this Court, the parties are directed to appear before the said Authority on September 19, 1989.;