CR No.5183 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (229) CR No.5183 of 2013 Date of decision:25.02.2014 Rameshwar and another ......Petitioners Versus Rajiv Shastri alias Rajbir Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Kharb, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the orders dated 03.02.2012 and 15.01.2013 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively).Petitioners moved an application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short 'Act') claiming that they had been engaged by the respondent to construct their house.
It was agreed that the petitioners would be paid ` 200/- per day each.
Petitioners completed the construction work.
However, they had not been paid their wages for the period they worked.
Respondent in his reply averred that the application moved by the petitioners under the Act was not maintainable.
In fact, petitioners had earlier filed suit for Sandeep Sethi 2014.03.03 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5183 of 2013 -2- recovery but the same got dismissed as withdrawn and the said fact had not been disclosed by the petitioneRs.On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Competent Authority:- 1.
Whether the claim of applicants is maintainable?.
2.
Whether there is existed relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the applicants?.
3.
Relief.
Parties led their evidence in support of their case.
The Competent Authority dismissed the application moved by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 03.02.2012.
The said order was upheld in appeal by the District Judge vide impugned order dated 15.01.2013.
Hence, the present petition by the petitioner- tenant.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, petitioners claimed that they had been engaged by the respondent for construction of his house.
Case of the petitioners is that though they have worked for 160 days and had only been paid ` 11,000/- whereas, they were to be paid ` 66,400/-.
The Courts below have rightly held that the petitioners were liable to establish that their existed a relationship of master and servant between the parties.
Petitioners had been merely engaged in construction of a residential house by the respondent.
Hence, it Sandeep Sethi 2014.03.03 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5183 of 2013 -3- could not be said that their existed relationship of master and servant between the parties.
Case of the respondent, on the other hand, was that he had never engaged the petitioners for construction of his house.
Petitioner No.2 while appearing in the witness-box as AW-2 deposed that he was maintaining the attendance record while working at the house of the respondent but the said record was not proved on record by the petitioneRs.Petitioners had filed civil suit for recovery of the amount in question as indigent person.
However, when the report was called from the Collector, Panipat, it was reported that petitioners owned commercial plot in Village Lohari, therefore, the application moved by the petitioners to sue as indigent person was dismissed and they were directed to affix the requisite court fee.
Instead of paying the court fee, petitioners withdrew the suit and thereafter, filed an application before the Competent Authority under the Act.
Petitioners had concealed the factum of filing of the civil suit by them at the time of moving the application under the Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioneRs.Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 25, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.03.03 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document