Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.S.C. MILLS versus P.W.A.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


R.S.C. Mills v. P.W.A. - WRIT - C No. 11427 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 12253 (18 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11427 of 1988

Ramala Sahakari Chini Mill Ltd, Ramala, District Meerut, through its General Manger Vs. Payment of Wages Authority, Begam Bridge Road, Meerut and another

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

In spite of sufficient service as mentioned in the office report dated 02.02.2007, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2-Sahendra Pal Singh.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.05.1988 passed by Payment of Wages Authority, Meerut in P.W.A. No.128 of 1987, Sahendra Pal Singh Vs. M/s R.S.C. Mills, Meerut. Respondent No.2 had filed a claim before respondent No.1 under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 claiming that the following amounts had wrongly been deducted from his salary:-

1.Rs.62.66/- from his salary for 19 & 20th November, 1986.

2.Rs.2820.00/- from his salary from 16.12.1986 to 15.03.1987

3.Rs.1368.80/- from his salary from 01.05.1987 to 13.06.1987

(Total Rs.4251.46/-)

The impugned order is ex parte. In the order, it is mentioned that opposite party, i.e. petitioner, filed written statement but thereafter no one appeared on behalf of petitioner, hence case was directed to proceed ex parte. Thereafter the said order was recalled conditionally. However as condition of payment of cost to  Sahendra Pal Singh was not complied with, hence order directing the case to proceed ex parte remained intact.

Ultimately, the respondent No.1 directed payment of the claimed amount and five times compensation amounting to Rs.21,000/- and odd. Total liability was fixed at about Rs.25,500/-.

In my opinion, as proceedings were ex parte and as even the version of the defendant taken in the written statement was not taken into consideration by respondent No.1, hence there was no justification to award five times compensation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed that the awarded amount in respect of unpaid salary will be paid by the petitioner without admitting its liability.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified. The direction regarding payment of unpaid salary amounting to Rs.4251.46/- contained in the impugned order is maintained, however the direction to pay five times compensation is quashed.

Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.4251.46/- to respondent No.2 within three months or deposit the said amount within the same period before respondent No.1 for immediate payment to respondent No.2. In case of default, since after three months till actual payment/deposit 1% per month interest shall be payable.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.