IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence of proceedings of a lower Court and that the writ power is to be invoked only upon special occasions and in exceptional circumstances.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

"a) set-aside the judgment & order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the Ld.Court of Sh.K.R.Verma-Authority;

b) call for the record pertain to the case;

c) pass such other and further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may dim fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the respondent, i.e., the applicant before the Court of Sh. K.R. Verma - Authority (Under Shops & Establishment Act, 1954) (North-West District), Labour Welfare Centre, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter "learned Authority/Court below") had filed a claim under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter "the Act) regarding non-payment of earned due wages by the petitioners herein.

3. It is submitted that in the above said claim, the learned Authority passed the impugned order dated 25th February, 2016, in favour of the respondent herein, whereby, the petitioners were directed to pay Rs.68,000/- as due earned wages and Rs.2,000/- as penalty/compensation to the respondent for not making payment of dues and withholding it illegally.

4. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law since the same has been passed without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

5. It is submitted that the learned Authority failed to appreciate that the claim petition filed by the respondent under the Act is not maintainable and liable to be rejected on the count that the respondent failed to establish that the petitioners are management.

6. It is submitted that the learned Authority erred in observing that the petitioners owned a shop and that the respondent is a workman working since the last 10 years as the same has not been substantiated by any documentary proof.

7. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the respondent is an educated person claiming to be a retired police officer having its own residential accommodation whereas the petitioners are daily wage labourers staying in a rented accommodation having only one room.

8. It is submitted that learned Court below failed to consider the oral submission made by the petitioners in respect of their status as labourers and that the claim of the respondent is frivolous and misconceived since the petitioners never owned a shop.

9. It is submitted that the learned Authority erred in observing the claim of the respondent of Rs.10,000/- as his last drawn salary without examining the fact that there is no management namely M/s Flowers & Flowrs Garland Decoration Works & Services and M/s Raju & Sons allegedly owned by the petitioners.

10. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is based on conjectures and surmises, and there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioners as management and respondent working as a clerk/field worker.

11. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed.

12. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

13. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances available on the record and there is no illegality or patent irregularity thereto.

14. It is submitted that the respondent was under the employment of the petitioners as a clerk cum field worker since the year 2000 and had filed his claim for the payment of his earned wages for the period of 1st July, 2013 to 24th January, 2014 along with over time and leave encashment after his illegal termination by the petitioners on 24th January, 2014.

15. It is su