1. I propose to dispose of the above three petitions by a common order as in all these petitions common questions of facts and law are involved.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the petitions are that the petitioner is a textile weaving unit having the strength of less than 20 workers in its establishment. The respondent No. 2 filed separate applications under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of amounts on account of notice pay, cost of living allowance at 18 per cent. The petitioners resisted the applications. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions. The respondent No. 1 on assessment of evidence on record, allowed the applications vide order dated 17-7-1988.
3. The petitioners being aggrieved against the order dated 17-7-1988 have filed the present petitions.
4. Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the applications under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act were not competent as the respondent No. 2 was drawing more than Rs.1,500 per month.
5. On the other hand Mr. Ali Akbar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in all the petitions submitted that this point was not raised by the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondent No. 2 filed separate applications under section 17 of the Act and claimed certain amounts in their applications. The petitioners filed separate written statements/objections. The petitioners did not plead that the respondent No. 2 were not entitled to file application as they were drawing more than Rs.1,500 per month. The respondent No. 1 had recorded findings of fact to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was competent to file applications under section 17 of the Act. From the matter on record, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 were drawing more than Rs.1,500 per month. The petitioner did not lead any evidence before the respondent No. 1 in justification of the allegations and having failed to do so, the petitioners must suffer the consequences. In the result, I see no merits in these petitions which are dismissed.
7. The above are the reasons for short order dated 12-4-1989 passed on conclusion of arguments dismissing the petitions.