JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. This Revision petition is directed against the orders dated 9.11.1981 and August 19, 1983 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. Vide order, Annexure P-3, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ‘the Act’) at Ludhiana partly allowed the petition under Section 15(2) of the Act, filed by Respondent No. 3 (Husan Lal) and directed the Petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 3916.20 Ps to him. Vide order, Annexure P-4, learned Additional District Judge- cum-Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioners herein against the afore-mentioned order, Annexure P-3. Aggrieved of these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court.
Facts:
Respondent No. 3 moved an application dated July 19, 1979 (Annexure P-l) under Section 15(2) of the Act, inter-alia, on the ground that he was employed in the factory M/s Supreme Woollen Mills (Petitioner No. 2) and that he was not paid the wages and other dues, the details of which were mentioned in para 3(1) of the application. It was further averred that the petitioner No. 1 (Prem Nath Gupta) who is a partner in petitioner No. 2 is the person responsible for making these payments. The petitioners contested the aforesaid application vide their reply, copy appended as Annexure P-2. The Authority under the Act, however, on appreciation of evidence led by the parties and their respective pleadings, partly accepted the claim of Respondent No. 3 and held him entitled to a sum of Rs. 3916.20 Ps to be payable by the petitioners.
3. While accepting the afore-mentioned claim, the Authority under the Act, held that Respondent No. 3 owned Rs. 850/- to the Petitioners which he had taken as advance; Respondent No. 3 was entitled to Rs. 420.80 Ps as wages for the period from 1.10.1978 to 24.10.1978 at the rate of Rs. 625/- per month; he was also entitled to Rs. 555.90 Ps against leave with wages, apart from the retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs. 2187.50 Ps, as well as Rs. 625/- in lieu of one month’s notice which was required to be given to him under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In addition, Respondent No. 3 was also found entitled to Rs. 977/- as bonus.
4. This petition came up for hearing before this Court on November 23, 1983 when while issuing notice of motion, it was directed that the wages be paid to the workman (Respondent No. 3) on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Authority after notice to the petitioners. Respondent No. 3, however, did not appear despite service. Hence, the petition was admitted on January 4, 1984.
5. No one has turned up on behalf of Respondent No. 3 even at the time of the final hearing.
6. Heard Shri V.G.Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the pleadings.
7. The main trust of arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned orders are totally beyond the scope of jurisdiction to grant payments in respect of claims under Section 15(2) of the Act and the same have been passed in ignorance of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act, which provides that no direction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed wages if the Authority is satisfied that the delay was caused due to bona fide error or bona fide dispute as to the amount payable to the employed person.
8. I, however, do not find any substance in the afore-mentioned submissions. It could not be disputed that no retrenchment compensation and/or one month’s wages in lieu of notice period was paid to Respondent No. 3 under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, though a case of voluntary abandonment of employment by Respondent No. 3 was sought to be made out. In my view, the issue as to whether Respondent No. 3 was retrenched or he himself abandoned the employment, is a question of fact and the Authorities under the Act having returned a concurrent finding of fact in favour of Respondent No. 3, no interference is called for by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Similarly, reliance by the Petitioners upon Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 is also misplaced inasmuch as the said Proviso could be pressed into service only to avoid liability to pay compensation which the Prescribed Authority is competent to grant under sub-section (3) to an employed person. Needless to say, such compensation is awarded over and above the payment of delayed wages/dues. In the case in hand, no compensation under sub-section (3) has been awarded to Respondent No. 3 and what has been awarded to him is only the actual wages and/or dues which the Petitioners had illegally withheld.
9. For the reasons afore-mentioned, I find no merit in this Revision Petition which is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.