Indra Raj vs The Rajasthan State … on 8 July, 2008

 C Rev.- 1056/98 -Indra Raj Vs. The Raj. State Sriganganagar   :   Order dt.8.7.08

                                         1/2


        S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO NO.1056/98
           Indra Raj Vs. The Raj. State Sriganganagar.

Date of order                        :              8th July, 2008
                                    PRESENT

           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. J. Gehlot for the petitioner.
Ms. Sabana Kuresi for Mr. Vijay Agarwal for the respondents.

                                     ---------

1.            Heard learned counsels.

2.            Ms. Sabana Kuresi appears for the respondents and prays

for time. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the side opposite

submits that the controversy involved in this case is covered by a

detailed judgment of this Court in connected revision petitions. One

such revision petition No.1057/1998 Chandrabhan Vs. The Rajasthan

Srigangangar Sugar Mils Ltd. was decided by this Court on 27th July,

2000. The operative portion of the said judgment is as under:-



                             "When in the case in hand the petitioner was
                      able to satisfy about delay for the reasons
                      mentioned in the application which were not
                      controverted by the respondent, I am of the view
                      that the order of learned District Judge suffers
                      from infirmity and is illegal.
                             Consequently, the revision petition is hereby
                      allowed.      The order of learned District Judge
                      allowing the appeal is set aside while the order of
                      the learned Payment of Wages Authority dated
                      23.5.1992 is restored. No order as to costs."
  C Rev.- 1056/98 -Indra Raj Vs. The Raj. State Sriganganagar   :   Order dt.8.7.08

                                        2/2


3.            By the impugned order dated 17.8.1998 in the present

case also, the application filed by the workman before the Payment of

Wages Authority was held to be time barred though the same was

filed after 12 months from the date of the deduction from wages.

4.            In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed

in same term and the learned Payment of Wages Authority is directed

to decide the case of the petitioner-workman afresh in accordance

with law. No order as to costs.

                                              [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.

item No.71
babulal/-