Dismissed

State of Raj v. Hazari

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2025CW/328/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act. The Court held that the mandatory deposit of the award amount was not made within the required thirty-day period, making the appeal time-barred and legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal is affirmed. Stay application disposed of.

State of Raj Vs Hazari — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:51982]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 328/2016

¶4

State Of Rajasthan Through Deputy Conservator Of Forest Cum Deputy Director, Core Area, Tiger Proje, Ranthambore, Sawaimadhopur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hazari S/o Ram Narayan Gurjar, Village Indola, Post Chan, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy. GC For Respondent(s) : None

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶11

26/11/2025

¶12

This civil misc. writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Appeal No. 27/2014 whereby the learned Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned Authority, Payment and Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter, ‘Authority’) whereby the claim of the respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay the sum of Rs. 4,57,600/-.

¶13

The brief facts arising out of the petition are that the respondent, Hazari, was employed on daily wages by the petitioner State in January 1990. The respondent was terminated by the petitioner on 25.02.1992. Pursuant to this, the respondent filed an application before the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. The same was allowed on 06.06.2000 wherein the learned Labour

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:51982]

[CW-328/2016]

Court ordered for reinstatement of respondent and directed the petitioner to give back wages to him.

¶18

The petitioner State preferred a writ petition against the order dated 06.06.2000 before this Court in which the stay application was decided on 27.05.2003 whereby the reinstatement order was stayed and the petitioner was directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employee was regularly paid the wages to the tune of Rs. 572/per month till June 2009. He submits that on 01.02.2011, taking his wages to be Rs. 2600/- per month, the respondent claimed Rs. 41,600/- for the period of 01.08.2009 to 30.11.2010 i.e. for 16 months before the learned Authority. A reply to the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner State claiming that since the last drawn salary was Rs. 22/- per day, the wages should have been Rs. 572/- per month and that a person cannot claim for more than 12 months at a time.

¶19

The learned Authority decided the claim on 31.07.2014 whereby the respondent’s claim of Rs. 41,600/- was allowed and a compensation of Rs. 4,57,600/- was given. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner State submits that the learned Authority pronounced the order on 31.07.2014, and on the very next day, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order but the same was received on 14.08.2014 after a letter was written to the Court. After taking the necessary approvals, the petitioner State filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment and Wages Act, 1936 before the learned District Judge on 15.09.2014 as 14.09.2014 was Sunday and an amount of Rs.

[CW-328/2016]

[2025:RJ-JP:51982]

(3 of 4)

4,48,448/- was deposited before the learned Authority on 25.03.2015.

¶24

On 18.11.2014, this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner State against the order dated 06.06.2000 and set aside the order of reinstatement and back wages and awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh of compensation along with interest of 6% from the date of award. The learned District Judge after hearing the appeal on 29.09.2015, dismissed the same on the grounds of limitation and payment of amount. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2015, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶25

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.

¶26

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts on record, the Court needs to assess whether the impugned award passed by the learned District Judge calls for any interference when the condition precedent for filing the appeal under Section 17(1A) of the Payment of wages Act, 1936 has not been complied with.

¶27

The relevant provision of Section 17(1A) of the Payment of wages Act, 1936 reads as under:-

¶28

“ 17. Appeal-

¶29

(1A) No appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. ”

¶30

In the present case, the petitioner submitted a cheque of Rs. 34,122/- on 13.09.2014. The appeal was filed on 15.09.2014, and an amount of Rs. 4,48,448/- was deposited before the learned

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:51982]

[CW-328/2016]

Authority on 25.03.2015. The learned District Judge considering the condition precedent of depositing the award amount, vide its order dated 29.09.2015, rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held the appeal to be time barred.

¶35

Having regard to the cases relied upon by the learned Labour Court, discussions made and the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this civil writ petition, this Court finds that the period of thirty days starts from the date of award i.e. from 31.07.2014 till 30.08.2014. However, an amount of Rs. 34,122/was deposited on 13.09.2014. Further, the appeal was filed on 15.09.2014, post which, the amount of Rs. 4,48,448/- was deposited on 25.03.2015.

¶36

The condition precedent of depositing the payable amount for filing the appeal has not been complied with as per the provisions of Section 17(1A) of the Payment of wages Act, 1936. Moreover, the appeal itself has been filed way beyond the limitation period and thus, the learned District Judge has rightly held the appeal as time barred. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge does not warrant interference.

¶37

In view of the foregoing discussion, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶38

Since the main petition is dismissed, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶39

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶40

Ashish Kumar /31

State of Raj v. Hazari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj v. Hazari

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

Sushri Suman Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Babulal Sharma Vs State Cooper Departmentors

Abdul Rehman Vs State

Ravinder Singh Chouhan Son of Late Shri Gopal Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Vs Smt Anita Meena and Ors.

Roshan Lal Gurjar and Ors. Vs State Medical and Healthors