Smt. Sita Devi vs Om Prakash Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 9643 Raj

(1 of 3) [SAW-589/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 589/2021

1. Smt. Sita Devi W/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal Janva, Aged About 39 Years, Nai Pind, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

2. Baadri Lal S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal Janva, Aged About 20 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother I.e. Petitioner No. 1, R/o Nai Pind, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

3. Ganpat S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal Janva, Aged About 18 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother I.e. Petitioner No. 1, R/o Nai Pind, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

4. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal Janva, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother I.e. Petitioner No. 1, R/o Nai Pind, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

5. Daya Ram Janva S/o Hira Lal Janva, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nai Pind, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

6. Smt. Narbada W/o Sh. Daya Ram Janva, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Nai Pind, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus

Om Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, 403/3, Hiran Magri, Sector-3, Udaipur.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Radhe Shyam Mankad.

For Respondent(s)         :     --


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR


                                          (2 of 3)               [SAW-589/2021]

                                Judgment

25/07/2022

The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the order

dated 1.10.2012 passed by the prescribed authority, Payment of

Wages, Udaipur and the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the

Appellate Authority i.e. learned District Judge, Udaipur. The writ

petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order

dated 19.07.2021 which is assailed in this intra court appeal.

The facts in a nutshell are that the deceased employee, Late

Shri Kishan Lal worked as driver with the respondent from

1.04.2007 till 08.06.2008. When he passed away, the appellants

preferred an application under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages

Act, 1936 before the prescribed authority under the Act of 1936,

claiming due salary amounting to Rs.68,700/- of about 15 months

and 7 days of the deceased employee. The respondent denied the

averments made in the application and contended that no amount

was due to the deceased employee. The prescribed authority, after

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced before

it, vide order dated 1.10.2012 held that the application filed

before the authority was not presented within 12 months as

prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act,

1936 and that no amount was due to the deceased employee.

An appeal was filed against the said order in which the

findings of fact arrived at by the prescribed authority were

affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The challenge made to these

orders failed with rejection of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the orders

were passed by Payment of Wages Authority and Appellate

(3 of 3) [SAW-589/2021]

Authority ignoring the evidence produced before them. It was

contended that no satisfactory evidence was produced before

Competent Authority to prove the fact that salary was actually

paid to the deceased employee. Further, sufficient explanation for

condonation of delay was furnished. Hence, the impugned orders

are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

material available on record.

We are of the view that the learned Single Bench rightly

dismissed the writ petition holding that both the authorities

arrived at concurrent findings of fact by appreciating the evidence

produced before them.

It is not in dispute that the issues involved simple questions

of fact which were concluded against the claimants by concurrent

findings recorded by the Payment of Wages Authority and the

Appellate Authority. We, therefore, find no reason to disturb these

concurrent findings of fact as the same is supported by evidence

and not vitiated in any manner. Therefore, no interference is

warranted whatsoever in the order passed by learned Single

Bench.

In the result, the intra court appeal fails and is dismissed

being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

32-Ravi Kh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)