State of J & K vs Aftab Ahmed and Ors.

Petitioner challenges award of wages to 42 labourers through respondent No. 1, their attorney holder/mate on the ground that their timebarred

claim was wrongly entertained at his back, it transpires that a claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 on behalf of 42 labourers for Rs.

70,580/ on 811990. The concerned Authority entertained it after condoning the delay. Consequently, petitioner was summoned and he was

representated by one Jaipal, Technical Officer. He filed objections, but failed to adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The Authority passed the award

after appraisal of evidence and consideration of record and directed petitioner to satisfy it vide order dated 12.9.1990.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner took an appeal before the learned District Judge, Rajouri who on reappraisal of evidence on record upheld the

award, vide judgment dated 22.12 1990. Petitioner has now come up before this court challenging the orders passed by the forums below. His

star grievance is that a belated claim was wrongly entertained at his back and without hearing him. It is also contended that the claim is fictitious

and the award a product of conspiracy between respondents 1 and 4,

I have heard LC for parties. All that remains to be considered is whether the Authority could have entertained the belated claim application without

hearing the petitioner. I am unable to examine the other contention raised in view of the concurrent findings of fact by the forums below.

To appreciate the first issue a look at section 15 of the payment of Wages Act and the relevant rules becomes necessary. Proviso to section 15(2)

provides that an application for direction to pay wages shall be presented within 12 months from the date on which deduction for wages was made

or from the date on which payment of wages was due to be made, as the case may be. The relevant Rules say that an application may be

presented to the Authority at any time in person or through registered post who shall at once endorse the case to be registered. Thereafter, the

Authority may refuse to entertain an application, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, if it is satisfied, among other thing?, it is

barred by time. And if the application is entertained, the Authority shall call upon the Employer to appear.

On a conjoint reading of Section 15 and the relevant Rules, it becomes clear that an application presented has to go through a preliminary

saddening test taking in regard amongst other factors whether it is barred by time and whether the delay is required to be condoned, before it is

rejected or entertained. This process seems to be the exclusive domain of the Authority who may accept it even if it is delayed or rejected for

some other reason. The employer does not come in at all till the application is entertained even after condonation of delay and he is summoned to

appear. His right is to contest it on merit thereafter. The legislature has not intended that he should be heard at preliminary stage.

Proceeding on this premise, I am of the firm opinion that petitioner was not required to be heard when the application was entertained by the

Authority after condoning the delay. Nor has he been prejudiced or any of his rights infringed. His casual approach is resisting the claim on merit is

apparent on the face of record. Therefore, it is too late for him in the day to seek shelter under the technicalities.

For the reasons given, I dismiss this petition in limine.