AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—In this case neither any stay order has yet been passed nor even notice has been issued. The workman- Respondent No. 3 in this writ petition-Sri Mahatm Rai instituted case No. PW 11 of 1990 before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Maunath Bhanjan, Mau against the Petitioner, which was decided on 25.03.1991. It was held through the aforesaid order that an amount of Rs. 1,200/- had wrongly been deducted from the wages of the workman from October 1989 to January 1990. Accordingly, payment of said amount along with five times compensation i.e. Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 100/- as cost (total Rs. 7,300/-) was directed to be paid. Against the said order Petitioner filed Appeal No. 3 of 1992, which was dismissed by 1st Additional District Judge, Mau, on 10.10.1995. Both these orders have been challenged through this writ petition.
At the time of filing of the appeal the entire awarded amount must have been deposited and as no stay order has been granted in this writ petition, hence the said amount must have been withdrawn by the workman.
In case writ petition is allowed it will be very difficult for the Petitioner to recover the said amount from the workman. Secondly such recovery after fifteen years will be quite unjust rather cruelty upon the workman.
Supreme Court in Rajendra Deva v. Hari Fertilizers 2006 (109) FLR 14 (Sum.). refused to decide the matter on merit as the amount payable to the workman was quite small.
Accordingly, in view of the facts that the amount involved is quite small and it must Have been withdrawn by the workman, this writ petition is dismissed without looking into the impugned orders to ascertain as to whether they are unjust or illegal.