DALELA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions have arisen from the same order dated 10. 3. 92 passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar and hence, both the petitions are being disposed off by this common order.
(2.) AS against the claim of wage at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month for the period from 1. 1. 84 to 14. 5. 85, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sri Ganganagar, allowed the claim of Rs. 2350/- on account of wages for the period from 18. 1. 85 to 14. 5. 85. A compensation of Rs. 2350/- was also awarded to Krishanlal (petitioner in these revisions and applicant before the learned Authority ). In appeal, the learned D. J. , Sri Ganganagar, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as time barred and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent (which was non-applicant before the learned Authority) and awarded the claim to the extent of Rs. 150/- only, being the wage for half month of May, 1995 at the rate of Rs. 300/- p. m. AS against this order of the learned D. J. Sriganganagar, these revision petitions, have been preferred. I have heard Mr. D. K. Parihar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal learned counsel for the respondent. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act passed the order on 16. 7. 90. The appeal was filed before the learned D. J. on 3. 9. 90. Thus, the appeal was filed after forty nine days from the date of the order of the learned Authority. Deducting eighteen days, which were taken in the supply of the copy of the order, the appeal was filed after thirty one days. The limitation for preferring the appeal under the Payment of Wages Act is thirty days. Obviously, the appeal was time barred. The order of the learned D. J. does not show that there was any application for condonation of delay. It has also not been averred in the revision petition that any application for condonation of delay was moved. Hence in my opinion, the learned D. J. has committed no error in holding that the appeal was barred by limitation. In these circumstances, the Revision Petition bearing No. 271/92 has no legs to stand as no other point was raised and argued before me. No appointment letter or any document has been produced in evidence to show that the pay of the petitioner was Rs. 750/- p. m. The claim for the period from 18. 1. 85 to 14. 5. 85 has been held to be with in period of limitation and rest of the claim was considered to be time barred and the learned counsel appearing for the revisioner has also frankly conceded that the wages for the above period only is within limitation. In the revision petition also, no claim for the period other than the above period has been pressed.
(3.) EX. A. l to EX. A. 15 are the copies of the relevant cash book. The petitioner in his statement before the learned Authority has admitted that EX. A. l to EX. A. 15 are in his own handwriting. These documents go to show that the petitioner has taken a sum of Rs. 300/- every month from April, 1984 to April, 1985. From this, it is evident that the pay of the petitioner was Rs. 300/- p. m. and not Rs. 750/- p. m. as claimed by him. As per notification dated 15. 1. 85 published in the Gazette dated 16. 1. 85, the minimum wage for 'munim' was Rs. 344. 50 p. m. (the petitioner was Munim ). Having regard to the human dignity and human right of the poor and the need for the observance of the labour laws, even if it is taken that the wage should have been Rs. 344. 50 p. m. , the petitioner is entitled to the above wage per month from 1. 1. 85 to 14. 5. 85 and not Rs. 750/- p. m. as claimed. From Ex. A. l to Ex. A. 15, it is evident that the petitioner has taken Rs. 300/- p. m. upto April, 1985. He is, therefore, entitled to Rs. 44. 50 x 4 = 178 for the months January, 1985 to April, 1985 and also Rs. 172. 25 for half month of May, 1985 at the rate of Rs. 344. 50 p. per month. Thus, at the most, he is entitled to Rs. 178 + 172 = 350 only. To this extent, the order of the learned D. J. deserves to be modified. In the result, the revision petition bearing No. 271/92 is dismissed and the revision petition No. 254/92 is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be paid Rs. 350/- only by the respondent. The order of the D. J. is modified to the above extent. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. . ;