- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on February 11, 1992 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated January 9, 1992 (Annexure 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) by which the learned Authority (respondent No. 1) came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) had made the payment to the petitioner and therefore, dropped the recovery proceedings, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was under the employment of respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) since last so many years. (ii) That since the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) did not make payment of wages to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1936) before the authority under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the learned Authority) on October 27, 1989 and in that application, notices were issued to the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) who refused to take summons, on which ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish ). The learned Authority through its order dated August 31, 1990 accepted the application filed by the petitioner under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1936 to the extent that respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) was ordered to make payment of Rs. 8000/- to the petitioner upto September 30, 1990. (iii) That the further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) did not make payment as ordered by the respondent No. 1 through judgment dated August 31, 1990 (Annexure 1), therefore, the learned Authority through letter dated November 14, 1990 (Annexure 2) asked the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara to recover the said amount from the respondent No. 2. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated August 31, 1990. During pendency of application filed by respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) for setting aside ex-parte judgment dated August 31, 1990, the respondent No. 2 moved another application that payment had already been made to the petitioner in pursuance of judgment dated August 31, 1990 (Annexure 1) and the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) (also produced the receipt showing that the payment had been made to the petitioner. However, the petitioner contended that no payment had been made so far, but on the basis of the receipt produced by the respondent No. 2 (Jagdish), the respondent No. 1 accepted the application filed by the respondent No. 2 and dropped recovery proceedings through order dated January 9, 1992 (Annexure 3 ). Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated January 9, 1992 (Annexure 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the main ground is that no payment was ever made by respondent No. 2 either to the petitioner or his counsel and the receipt which was filed by respondent No. 2 (Jagdish) is forged one as he did not put his signatures on it and the same was undated also and without making enquiry as to whether the receipt in question was executed by the petitioner or his counsel or not, dropping of recovery proceedings by respondent No. 1 through order dated January 9, 1992 (Annexure 3) was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order dated January 9, 1992 (Annexure 3) passed by respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside.;