State and ors Vs. Isharam - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1166513
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided OnOct-30-2014
AppellantState and ors
Respondentisharam
Excerpt:
s.b.civil writ petition no.3606/2000 state of rajasthan & ors.versus ishar ram order dated 30/10/2014 1/2 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur ::: order ::: s.b.civil writ petition no.3606/2000 state of rajasthan & ors.versus ishar ram date of order :::: 30th october, 2014. present hon'ble dr. justice vineet kothari appearance: mr.n.k.mehta, addl. govt. counsel (phed).none present for the respondent. -- by the court: 1. heard learned addl. govt. counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioner state (phed).none is present on behalf of respondent/workman despite service. 2. the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner state (phed) against the order dated 16.04.1999 passed by the competent authority under the payment of minimum wages act by which the said competent authority held in favour of the respondent/workman that he had worked as pump driver for the period 01.01.1993 to 30.09.1995 with the petitioner, public health & engineer department. the said competent authority has allowed the claim of the applicant to the extent of rs.31,458/- while giving a s.b.civil writ petition no.3606/2000 state of rajasthan & ors.versus ishar ram order dated 30/10/2014 2/2 finding that he has worked only for four hours in a day instead of eight hours.as claimed by the respondent/workman. the said authority has clearly observed that although the petitioner/employer has filed reply to the claim, however, the department did not lead any evidence to controvert the claim of the respondent/workman, nor produced any relevant documents in support of averments made in their reply as how many hours the respondent actually worked. 3. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.this court is satisfied that the findings of facts recorded by the said authority in absence of any contrary evidence led by the petitioner state, such findings cannot be held to be pervers.and are not liable to be upset by this court in the case under the writ jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner state is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. no costs. a copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (dr. vineet kothari).j. dj/- 8
Judgment:

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3606/2000 State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Ishar Ram Order dated 30/10/2014 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::: ORDER

::: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3606/2000 State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Ishar Ram Date of Order :::: 30th October, 2014.

PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.

JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr.N.K.Mehta, Addl.

Govt.

Counsel (PHED).None present for the respondent.

-- BY THE COURT: 1.

Heard learned Addl.

Govt.

Counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioner State (PHED).None is present on behalf of respondent/workman despite service.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner State (PHED) against the order dated 16.04.1999 passed by the competent authority under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act by which the said competent authority held in favour of the respondent/workman that he had worked as Pump Driver for the period 01.01.1993 to 30.09.1995 with the petitioner, Public Health & Engineer Department.

The said competent authority has allowed the claim of the applicant to the extent of Rs.31,458/- while giving a S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3606/2000 State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Ishar Ram Order dated 30/10/2014 2/2 finding that he has worked only for four hours in a day instead of eight houRs.as claimed by the respondent/workman.

The said authority has clearly observed that although the petitioner/employer has filed reply to the claim, however, the Department did not lead any evidence to controvert the claim of the respondent/workman, nor produced any relevant documents in support of averments made in their reply as how many hours the respondent actually worked.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.this Court is satisfied that the findings of facts recorded by the said authority in absence of any contrary evidence led by the petitioner State, such findings cannot be held to be perveRs.and are not liable to be upset by this Court in the case under the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner State is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

No costs.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.

(Dr.

VINEET KOTHARI).J.

DJ/- 8