Executive Engineer and another vs Shri Moti Ram Bahuguna and others

Alok Singh, J.

Respondent no. 1 filed a claim petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 stating therein that they worked as labour with the

petitioners Department under Dalkanya Pey Jal Project between 25.09.1983 and 31.08.1984 and wages earned by them had been deducted illegally,

therefore, 10 times compensation should be paid to them. Petitioners Department denied the claim on various counts. Respondent no. 3, after hearing

the parties and perusing the material available on record, allowed the claim of respondent no. 1 vide order dated 17.04.2007, however, granted only

double the compensation claimed by respondent no. 1. Against the order dated 17.04.2007, petitioners Department as well as respondent no. 1 filed

appeal before respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 allowed the appeal of respondent no. 1 and granted compensation, as claimed by them and rejected

the appeal of petitioners Department. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.

Heard Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief

Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents no. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

In order to prove its case, respondent no. 1 had produced seven witnesses namely PW1 â€" Prem Singh Rautela Patwari; PW2 Bhairav Dutt,

Labour; PW3 Kishan Singh Labour; PW4 Jaidev Gram Pradhan; PW5 Bhuwan Chandra Kaflatiya Patwari; PW6 Gangadutt Sarpanch; and PW7

Motiram Bahuguna and produced documentary evidence.

PW1 Prem Singh Rautela Patwari stated that there was dispute regarding payment between Motiram Bahuguna and Munshi Lal, J.E. Both had

come to his office and Munshi Lal assured him that payment would be made on receiving the same from the office. Copy of the compromise arrived

at between the parties was produced on record. PW4 Jaidev Grampradhan also stated that he saw Motiram Bahuguna working on the site along with

other labours. He had issued a certificate, which was available on record. PW6 Gangadutt Sarpanch stated that Motiram Bahuguna and other labours

worked in Dalkanya Project. Motiram Bahuguna cut down 20 pines trees, therefore, he made complaint to SDM and requested him to stop the

payment of Motiram Bahuguna until he pays compensation. During conversation, Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam told him that Motiram Bahuguan is

not his contractor but his mate. Copy of the complaint was also available on record.

On the other hand, petitioners Department stated that Motiram Bahuguna and other Labours had not worked in Dalkanya Pey Jal Project and

Motiram Bahuguna had fair price shop, therefore, he could not work under the said scheme, consequently, petitioners Department has no liability to

pay any wages or compensation, as demanded by respondent no. 1. Statements of witnesses produced by the Department were shaky and ultimately,

supported the respondent no. 1’s case. Respondent no. 1 had produced attendance register duly signed by Mr. Nain Singh, Work Agent and in the

cross examination, DW 5 Munshi Lal, J.E. verified by the signature of Nain Singh on this document.

In my opinion, respondent no. 1 has established his case very well. Both the courts below have meticulously examined each witness and carefully

perused the material available on record, thereafter, come to a right conclusion. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, I am in full

agreement with the findings recorded by respondent no. 2. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby

dismissed. No order as to costs.