The question of wages for the period during which the work has been done can be best adjudicated by the Payment of Wages Authority.This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Amarpal Son v. The State of Rajasthan [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 833/2019] by The Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Kumar Sharma.
This intra court Appeal had been filed against the order dated 13-11-2018, vide which the SB Civil Writ Petition No.5320/1999 filed by the appellant had been dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the court vide order dated 8-4-1992 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3028/1988 has declared the termination of the appellant-(2 of 3) [SAW-833/2019] petitioner as illegal and void. The appellant-petitioner had worked with the respondents upto March, 2015, but he had not been given regular pay scale of Class-IV employee, for which the appellant is legally entitled. The writ petition has been wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge without considering the matter in proper perspective. The appellant is a poor person. Due to financial constraints he could not avail the alternative remedy as per directions issued vide order dated 8-4-1992 and he was unable to avail the alternative remedy as per directions issued vide impugned order dated 13- 11-2018. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant-petitioner was not a regular employee but a part time employee. Further, in compliance of the order dated 8-4- 1992 the appellant-petitioner was required to approach the Competent Authority under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the back wages, but he had not complied with the said directions. He had again filed the writ petition, which had been rightly dismissed vide impugned order with liberty to the appellant-petitioner to approach the Payment Wages Authority for calculation of rightful wages for which the appellant-petitioner can be held entitled. But instead of taking the appropriate alternative remedy, the appellant has approached this court.
The court opinioned that, “the vide order dated 8-4-1992 the appellant-petitioner was required to approach the Competent Authority under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act of 1947 for the back wages and on the issue of regular pay scale the appellant was left free to raise dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1947. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order has clearly held that the question of wages for the period during which the petitioner worked can be best adjudicated by the Payment of Wages Authority, therefore, the appellant has been set at liberty to approach the competent authority for claiming the pay for the period during which he worked.”
The court dismissed the appeal stating that, “the learned Single Judge has also fixed a time bound period of nine months for the Payment of Wages Authority to complete the exercise. In view of above, we find no error in the impugned order, If the appellant-petitioner applies for legal aid, in order to avail the legal remedy, he shall be provided with required legal aid as per Rules.”
