Dismissed

M/S Prp Professional Edge Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sahlini Sadavarti and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CR/6830/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a respondent-employer against a payment authority order. The authority refused forensic signature comparison because the claimant had medical deficits. The Court agreed, holding comparison unnecessary as the claimant had admitted the signatures.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as there was no ground to interfere with the order dismissing the application for forensic comparison.

M/S Prp Professional Edge Associates Pvt… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

104 CR-6830-2026 Date of decision :11.09.2026

¶3

M/S PRP PROFESSIONAL EDGE ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. AND

OTHERS

. .. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

SHALINI SADAVARTI AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

¶9

Present: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the respondent-employer against the impugned order dated 17.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Circle-4, Gurugram, dismissed the application preferred by the respondent for forensic examination of the signatures on affidavit furnished by the claimant-workman along with his reply dated 21.04.2026.

¶13

The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, duly considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and concluded that the signatures are not required to be compared, as the claimant had undergone serious neurosurgical disorder and treatment. As per the discharge summary issued by Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, it was found that the

¶14

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR-6830-2026

¶16

-2-

¶17

claimant-employee was suffering from deficits in motor functions, including hand coordination and grip. Therefore, keeping in view the medical condition of the claimant, the learned Authority held that forensic comparison of the signatures was not required and accordingly, dismissed the application. I find reason given by learned Authority to be based on material on record

¶18

Moreover, apart from the aforesaid reason, I find the present revision petition as well as the application preferred by the respondent to be without any basis as comparison of signatures on affidavit has no bearing on the merits of the case. It is not the case of the respondent that after filing his affidavit, the claimant has resiled from the same or has denied his signatures thereupon. Rather, the claimant is relying upon the affidavit filed by him and, therefore, once the claimant is admitting his signatures, there was no reason for the respondent to seek forensic comparison thereof. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has rightly concluded that the present application was an attempt to delay the proceedings and, therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶20

11.09.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL) manoj JUDGE

¶21

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Prp Professional Edge Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sahlini Sadavarti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prp Professional Edge Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sahlini Sadavarti and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases