The non-signing of the claim application by the petitioner was a curable technical mistake, and the non-consideration of the claim petition was unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Shivananda D.S., learned AGA for respondents, have appeared in-person.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the third respondent at Annexure-A, dtd. 28/1/2015 in case No [xxx xxx xxx] -8/14-15 and the order dtd. 28/8/2015 vide Ref.No. [xxx xxx xxx] 8/14-15 at Annexure-'D'.

3. The facts of the case are stated as under :-

It is stated that the petitioner was working under the second respondent as a Watcher. The petitioner's husband Sri.Krishne Gowda was also working as a Watcher. Both of them were working continuously. It is stated that the second respondent did not pay the wages to the petitioner with effect from 21/1/2012 onwards. Similarly, petitioner's husband Sri.Krishne Gowda was also denied wages from 3/4/2012 onwards. Both of them were requesting the second respondent to pay them the wages regularly and the request was not considered by the second respondent.

It is also averred that the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs.78,708.00 (Rupees Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and eight only) towards wages from January 2012 to 28/2/2013 at the rate of Rs.5622.14 (Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty-Two and fourteen paise only) being the monthly wage. The petitioner's husband Sri.Krishne Gowda was due in a sum of Rs.67,464.00 (Rupees Sixty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty-Four only) towards unpaid wages from the second respondent.

The petitioner and her husband filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). A joint application was filed. The application was registered as CR-8 of 2014-15 by the third respondent. On behalf of the applicants 7 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 7 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. The respondents did not lead any evidence and no documents were marked. It is further stated that the third respondent allowed the claim petition only in respect of petitioner's husband Sri.Krishne Gowda by order dtd. 28/1/2015 holding that the said Sri.Krishne Gowda is entitled to claim wages on the basis of minimum wages notified by the Government i.e., at Rs.3727.92 (Rupees Three thousand seven hundred and twenty seven and ninety two paise only) per month and further held that Sri.Krishne Gowda is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,385.80 (Rupees Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Five and eighty paise only) towards 10 months wages and for delay in not paying the wages due to the workman, the second respondent was held liable to pay Rs.16,500.00 as compensation and in all, it was held that Sri.Krishne Gowda is entitled for a sum of Rs.60,613.72 (Rupees Sixty Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen and Seventy two paise only). However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not sign the claim application and as such she cannot maintain the application claiming unpaid wages from the second respondent.

Aggrieved by the rejection, petitioner filed an application under Sec. 18 of the Act read with Sec. 151 CPC to recall the order dtd. 28/1/2015 insofar as it relates to her case and permit her to rectify the defect in the claim application filed by her under Sec. 16 of the Act.

The petitioner also filed another application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the recalling application. The third respondent issued an Endorsement rejecting the claim made by the petitioner vide application dtd. 28/7/2015 holding that the Authority under the Act is not empowered to recall the order and hence, the petitioner was advised to take up the matter in appeal for redressal of her grievance.

Under these circumstances, left with no other alternate or efficacious remedy, petitioner has invoked the writ of jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submits that order / endo