JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.5102 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for waiving the cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed upon the respondents pursuant to the order dated 9th May, 2023.

2. It has been stated in the instant application that when the matter was called out on 09.05.2023, since the name of the conducting law officer was not appearing in the supplementary cause list dated 9th May, 2023, therefore, none had appeared.

3. This Court in the aforesaid premise has imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in favour of Advocates’ Clerk Association, High Court of Jharkhand while granting further time to file the counter affidavit.

4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since the name of the counsel representing the State respondent was not there in the daily cause list, therefore, the appearance could not be made and hence the cost imposed may be waived.

5. This Court, on consideration of the reason aforesaid, is of the view that the cause shown therein, i.e., reference of the name of the conducting law officer in the daily cause list dated 09.05.2023 was not there, deems it fit and proper to recall the part of the order dated 9th May, 2023, whereby and whereunder the cost of Rs.25,000/- was directed to be deposited making a condition for acceptance of the counter affidavit.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 9th May, 2023 is modified to the above extent.

7. The cost of Rs.25,000/- which was directed to be deposited is hereby recalled.

8. I.A. No.5102 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No.58 of 2020

9. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order impugned dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the respondent no.6–the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the payment of Wages Act, Hazaribagh, by which the said Authority has directed the petitioner and others to make payment of Rs.1,32,579/- to respondent No.2.

10. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, reads as under:

11. It is the case of the writ petitioner that under the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act, 2005”) work was sanctioned for construction of a pond (200x100x10) on the land of Pankaj Munda (the respondent no.3) in village Chokad, P.O. Maganpur under Gola Block District-Ramgarh with the estimated cost of Rs.4,57,600/- in the financial year 2009-10. Later on, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh vide letter no.334 dated 24th February, 2010 revised the cost of said pond to the extent of Rs.2,73,600/-. Thereafter, the construction work of the said pond was started on 26th December, 2009 and Sri Vikash Kumar, Junior Engineer, Gola Block was assigned with the said work. Further, as per the measurement done by the concerned Junior Engineer, Sri Vikash Kumar, the total work was completed to the extent of Rs.1,52,203/- only and as per Muster Roll the completed work was found to the extent of Rs.1,48,992/- only which was accordingly paid to the concerned labourers. The further case of the writ petitioner is that he was posted on deputation in Gola Block in terms of the order dated 31st January, 2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and he joined at Gola Block on deputation on 6th February, 2010 as Junior Engineer but he was not entrusted with work of construction of pond in question, rather the said work was being supervised by Sri Vikash Kumar, Junior Engineer which would be evident from the materials available on record. The respondent no.2 on behalf of 175 other labourers filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authority under the payment of Wages Act b