Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs Assistant Labour Comm. Jammu And on 9 December, 2021
Sr. No. 66
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 598/2018
IA No. 1/2018
In
OWP No. 603/2018
IA No. 1/2018
Gurmeet Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. B.S. Manhas, Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Vs
Assistant Labour Comm. Jammu and ..... Respondent(s)
others
Through: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
ORDER
09.12.2021
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 15.3.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Jammu whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section
17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been dismissed and the
order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Jammu (for short, ALC) upheld.
2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
3. A claim petition came to be filed by the claimants before the ALC
wherein it was alleged that they were engaged as labourers by the
appellant-respondent No. 1 in the claim petition for digging and laying
of the optical fibre cable work in Tehsil Akhnoor over a distance of 4.5
KM.
4. It was stated that the claimants engaged themselves as daily wagers
w.e.f., 05.10.2008 to 15.2.2009 and completed the assigned work to
the entire satisfaction of the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition-
appellant herein despite which only an amount of Rs. 22,000/- was
paid as part payment to the labourers with the assurance that the
whole wages would be paid in full in future, which did not happen.
5. It was further stated that the payment was delayed on one pretext or
the other and finally the petitioners were told by the appellant that he
would make payment by measurement at the rate of Rs. 60/- per
meter and not as per the daily wages as claimed.
It was on that account that the cause of action had accrued to
the claimants to file the claim petition before the ALC. In the
proceedings before the ALC, the respondent No.1/appellant herein was
served and subsequently set ex parte. Evidence was led by the
claimants in the proceedings. Subsequently, an application for setting
aside ex parte proceedings was filed which application came to be
dismissed.
6. A final award came to be passed by the ALC for an amount of Rs.
3,09,950/- along with compensation of Rs. 38,000/-. This order came
to be challenged before the court of Additional District Judge, Jammu in
appeal under Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which too
was dismissed.
As per the order passed by the appellate authority, the ex parte
award was in consonance with the unrebutted ex parte evidence led by
the claimants before the ALC.
7. Counsel for the appellant states that the view expressed by the
appellate authority was perverse in law inasmuch as it had failed to
take into consideration the legal notice dated 29.4.2009 which had
been served upon the appellant by the respondent No. 2 herein which
would reflect that in fact the labourers had been engaged by
respondent No. 2 and not by the appellant.
8. The legal notice had been discussed even in the claim petition filed by
the respondent No. 1/claimant and the background on which the said
notice was issued dealt with in detail in the claim petition, which is self-
explanatory. In that background, there is no legal infirmity or
perversity either in the claim petition, the averments made therein or
the findings recorded by the ALC or the appellate authority.
9. It is settled law that by exercising writ jurisdiction, the court does not
see the correctness or otherwise of the decision but the process of
arriving at that decision to see whether it is in consonance with the
legal and statutory principles. A reference in this regard can be made
to State of A.P vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (Dead) through LRS &
anr, (2003) 10 SCC 121. The Apex Court in the said judgment in
para 30 held thus:
"30. True it is that remedy of the writ petition
available in the High Court is not against the
"decision" of the subordinate court, tribunal or
authority but it is against the 'decision making
process'. In the "decision making process", if the
court tribunal or authority deciding the case, has
ignored vital evidence and thereby arrived at
erroneous conclusion or has misconstrued the
provisions of the relevant Act or misunderstood the
scope of its jurisdiction, the constitutional power of
the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 can be
invoked to set right such errors and prevent gross
injustice to the party complaining."
10. In para 33 of the judgment (supra), the Apex Court further held thus:
"33. No doubt, it was held that neither in exercise of
the power of writ under Article 226 nor in
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High
Court will convert itself into a court of appeal and
indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence.
The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to
interfere where important evidence has been
overlooked and the legal provisions involved are
misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognised
even in the case of Sawarn Singh on which strong
reliance was placed on behalf of the State. The
relevant observations are :
"13. In regard to a finding of fact
recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of
Certiorari can be issued only if in
recording such a finding, the tribunal
has acted on evidence which is legally
inadmissible, or has refused to admit
admissible evidence, or if the finding is
not supported by any evidence at all,
because in such cases the error amounts
to an error of law."
11. Be that as it may, the present petition is found to be without any merit
and is accordingly dismissed along with connected application(s).
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge
Jammu
09.12.2021
Naresh
