HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9819 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Shasank Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of UP. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, Krishan Kumar, has challenged the validity of an order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in case No. PW 26 of 2023, titled "Dinesh alias Lala v. M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta through its proprietor Krishan Kumar," whereby the opposite party in the aforesaid case, namely M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta through its proprietor Krishan Kumar, has been directed to pay Rupees 2,21,500/- towards arrears of wages to the opposite party No. 2, Dinesh alias Lala, and also to pay Rupees 4,43,000/- as damages. 3. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed against M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta, whereas recovery in furtherance of the order is sought to be made from the petitioner, Krishna Kumar, who is different from the opposite party in the case before the prescribed authority against whom the order has been passed. The petitioner had filed a written statement before the prescribed authority, a copy whereof has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure No. 6, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashank Shukla, Prachi Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Krishna Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Assistant Labour Commissioner Distt. Gonda And Another .....Respondent(s) which had been signed by the petitioner, Krishna Kumar, and wherein it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner is the proprietor of the brick kiln in which the claimant, opposite party No. 2, used to work. Even before the aforesaid pleadings filed by the petitioner before the prescribed authority, it appears that the petitioner has admitted himself to be the proprietor of M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta. From the aforesaid pleadings, it appears that M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta, is a proprietorship concern, which is not a legal entity. Proceedings were instituted against M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta, through its proprietor Krishna Kumar, and the petitioner, Krishna Kumar, himself had filed a written statement. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the proceedings had not been instituted against the petitioner, Krishna Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the affidavit in support of the writ petition mentions the name of the deponent as Dinesh alias Lala, and therefore, the affidavit is bad. The affidavit in question, a copy whereof is available at page 43 of the paper book, has been signed by the petitioner, Krishna Kumar. The Oath Commissioner has put his seal of verification at the bottom of the affidavit, wherein he has stated that the affidavit has been verified by the deponent Krishna Kumar. 4. Merely because the petitioner himself had committed a mistake by mentioning writ particulars of the deponent in the affidavit, would not entitle the petitioner to claim any benefit because of commission of a wrong by himself. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Brick-kiln in question is being operated by another partnership firm, and not by the petitioner or his Proprietorship Concern. This plea has not been taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed before the Prescribed Authority and the petitioner cannot take a new factual plea at this stage. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the amount of penalty imposed by the impugned order is excessive. Neither any pleading has been made in this regard in this petition nor has any ground been taken, therefore, this new plea cannot be raised in absence of any material available on record. WRIC No. 9819 of 2025 2 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this court finds no error or irregularity in the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in case No. PW 26 of 2023, titled "Dinesh alias Lala v. M/s Krishna Kumar Kasaundhan Eent Bhatta". The writ petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed. October 13, 2025 A.Nigam WRIC No. 9819 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench