Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan through the instant petition has challenged the order passed by the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 26.7.1997 (Annex.2) in PWA Case No. 285/1996 and the order passed in appeal by the District Judge on 2.4.2002 (Annex.4) in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 60/1998. The respondent No. 1 had preferred an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 stating therein that he had not been paid by the appellant for the period from 1.3.1994 till 31.12.1994 although he was employed at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,300/ -. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act while allowing the application of the respondent -applicant directed that a sum of Rs. 13,000/ - as outstanding wages, Rs. 13,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 200/ - as expenses of the claim be made to him.
(2.) THE Authority had relied upon the evidence of the respondent -applicant as well as two witnesses PW2 and PW -3 that he had done the work of operating and repairing electric motors. He had also done motor winding and repairing in the department. He had not been paid the salary with effect from 1.3.1993 till 31.12.1994 whereon he was removed by an oral order. Thereafter, he had been doing the work of the department but not on a regular monthly salary basis. PW -2 Rasrulla Khan as well as PW -3 Phatumal had also supported the claim of the applicant by stating that he had been working under Assistant Engineer, Nohar for the said period at a salary of Rs. 1300/ - which was not paid to him. The authority had also condoned the delay in preferring the application by accepting the explanation put forth by the applicant that he had earlier been taking up the matter with higher officers who had orally assured that the payment would be made. The order of the competent authority was challenged by the petitioner -appellants in appeal before the District Judge, Hanumangarh. There was a delay of about a year in preferring the appeal which has not been condoned while dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation vide order dated 2.4.2002.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the delay on the part of the State in preferring the appeal should have been condoned as it had been sufficiently explained.;