- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the award dated 20.10.2003. The learned Labour Court has found, relying upon the payment vouchers, that the payment made to the petitioner was for the typing charges, and it is not established that the petitioner was employed as dailywager.
(2.) Learned counsel has sought to contend, that the learned District Judge, vide Annex.1 had found the order of the Payment of Wages Authority to be not requiring any interference, as the Department has failed to prove, as to what was the contract, and what was the tenure of the contract. It was also contended, that the different amounts mentioned to have been paid in different months, is the amount arrived at on the basis of number of days, for which the petitioner had worked, in different months.
(3.) I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the vouchers of payment made to the petitioner have been produced on record, and one such voucher has been produced here also as Annex.3, whereby against the bill of Rs.1085/-, a payment of Rs.700/- was made, and a look at the cross-examination of the petitioner, produced in this Court as Annex.4, does show, that therein the petitioner has admitted, that the vouchers, which have been produced, are correct.;