The discretion to impose penalties under the Payment of Wages Act must be exercised reasonably, with adequate justification for any enhancements.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri. Vinay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel while none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service of notice.

2. By means of the present writ petition the Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, new Delhi has approached this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 26.6.2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner under Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner has also challenged the orders dated 21.5.2004 and 30.5.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Prescribed Authority and also rejecting their application for recall of the previous order.

3. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 was working as a casual labourer with the petitioners. The present dispute relates to non payment of wages from 15.10.1977 to 30.9.1980 and as the wages were not paid by the petitioners the respondent filed a claim petition before the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

4. Notices were issued to the petitioners who had put in appearance and also filed preliminary objections to the claim preferred by the workmen. It was stated that the claim for wages pertaining to the period of 1977 to 1980 was belatedly filed in 1988. The application preferred by the petitioners was rejected after due considerations vide orders dated 23.9.2022 and order dated 30.9.2002 which orders were never challenged further in appeal by the petitioners and they subsequently contested the matter on merits.

5. The employee had claimed that for the period from 15.10.1977 to 30.9.1980 he was entitled to the wages amounting to Rs. 17307/-. The petitioner in the said proceedings was repeatedly granted liberty to file written statement and the evidence to oppose the claim of respondent No.1 but despite several opportunities they did not file any written submissions.

6. An application was also moved by the workmen for a direction to the petitioner to produce relevant service records. The Prescribed Authority allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to produce the service records as prayed by the workman. As the order was not complied and no document was produced before the Prescribed Authority the workman had given his oral evidence as well as documents to substantiate his claim and in the aforesaid circumstances the Prescribed Authority found his claim to be genuine and admissible and consequently directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 18161/- as wages and one time penalty of Rs. 18161/- totalling to Rs. 36,322/- were directed to be paid to the workman.

7. The petitioners never filed appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which attained finality for the petitioner but the workman preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lucknow. In the said appeal it was stated that quantum of damages should be enhanced as the workman has suffered for seven years. Despite service to the petitioners they did not participate in the said appeal which proceeded ex parte and was allowed vide order dated 21.5.2004. While allowing the appeal of the workman learned Additional District Lucknow, Lucknow modified the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21.5.2004 and the workman was entitled to get ten times of the unpaid amount of damages.

8. The petitioners had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 21.5.2004 wherein they stated that they did not have any knowledge of the appeal. The said application was also supported by an application for condonation of delay where it was stated that the judgment passed in appeal came to the knowledge of the petitioner only when certified copy of the judgment and order was filed in another case in the court of Prescribed Authority and was received by them on 13.1.2005. The application for recall was rejected and thus it is noticed t