Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajan Roy, J.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Through Executive Enginner - Petitioner
Vs.
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava And Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Single No. – 1616, 1903 of 2010
Decided On : 28-01-2019
For the Petitioner: B.N. Misra, Amit Singh Bhaduria
For the Respondent: C.S.C., C.L. Yadav, Chandra Shekhar, S.C. Sitapuri, Shailendra Singh
The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the adverse inference drawn from the absence of evidence to rebut a claim.
Headnote:
Payment of Wages Act - U.P. Power Corporation Limited - Act, 1936 - Section 16
Fact of the Case:
The U.P. Power Corporation challenged an order holding it liable for payment of wages to a deceased workman. The workmen claimed relief under Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for a specific period.
Finding of the Court:
The Prescribed Authority found in favor of the workmen based on oral and documentary evidence, and the Corporation's failure to produce evidence to rebut the claim.
Issues: Engagement of workmen, liability of the Corporation, and applicability of res judicata and time bar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Corporation's witnesses untruthful, and the absence of documentary evidence led to an adverse inference. The plea of res judicata was rejected, and the time bar did not result in the rejection of the claim entirely.
Final Decision: The court allowed one writ petition in part, modified the operative portion of the decision, and allowed another writ petition to the extent that the petitioner was not liable to pay any wages.
JUDGMENT :
Rajan Roy, J.
1. Heard Sri Lav Kumar Agrawal and Sri D.N. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shailendra Singh for the respondents in respective writ petitions.
2. Writ Petition No.1616 (MS) of 2010 has been filed by U.P. Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) challenging the order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 holding it liable for payment of wages to the opposite party no.2-workman opposite party no.1 died during pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs have been substituted.
3. Proceedings were initiated by the private opposite party under Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1936’) for payment of wages for the period May, 2006 to May 2007 claiming relief against the Corporation @Rs.86 per day i.e. Rs.2064 per month. Summons were issued to the petitioner herein who filed written statement etc.
4. The workmen led oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner i.e. the employer also led oral as well as documentary evidence which was in the form of work contract issued to the petitioner of connected writ petition No.1903 (MS) of 2010 for a period of two months.
5. At this stage it is not out of place to mention that after filing the written statement and amended written statement Paragraph 12 of the said statement was amended by the petitioner of writ petition no.1616(MS) of 2010 to say that the operation of the Sub Station concerned was handed over to the contractor for some period. Two documents were filed to show that M/s Garg Trading Company was the Contractor. These documents are annexed as Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition which show that the said Company was engaged for the month of August, 2006 and May 2007 to July 2007 for operation of 33/11 KV Sub Station, Amaniganj, (Milkipur), District Faizabad to maintain proper supply of electricity through skilled Sub Sub Station Operator and other staff having required qualification. However, for the remaining period of the claim no such document was filed nor was any document filed to show that the workmen were in fact engaged by the Garg Trading Company.
6. The respondent Ms/ Garg Trading Co. after being impleaded on 09.04.2010 filed its written statement alleging that no relief had been claimed against it and it had never engaged the said workmen. Workmen also filed pleadings that they had never been engaged by the said Company nor had worked for them nor received any wages.
7. After hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority considered the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The oral evidence in the form of three witnesses produced by the workmen including Ram Bahor, a retired employee of the petitioner-Power Corporation, who was posted at the relevant time at Sub Station Amaniganj (Milkipur). Documentary evidence was also led by the workmen in the form of log-sheets,, etc. which indicated the attendance of the workmen and counter signatures by the Junior Engineer etc. of the Power Corporation. These documents were shown to the witnesses of the Corporation-employer. No documentary evidence was produced by the Corporation in rebuttal to show that there was no engagement of the workmen or that the documents submitted by the them were forged and fabricated, although, they had ample opportunity to do so. Even during the examination of the employer witnesses they were asked as to whether they had brought the original attendance register, log-book etc., wherein, though, they admitted to the preparation of the said documents in the year 2005-06 and thereafter, they clearly stated that they had not brought the documents. No such documentary evidence was filed by the Power Corporation on affidavit though it could have very well be done.
8. The Prescribed authority considered the oral evidence before it and found that though the appointment letter was not issued to the workmen as was admitted to them,
