Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.)Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the Assistant Labour CommissionercumAuthority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (respondent no. 3) in M.W Case No. 89 of 2008, whereby the claim of the respondent no. 4 on behalf of Anil Kumar Pandey was allowed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 89,687.12/- as the difference in minimum wages for the period November, 2005 till November, 2008 and five times compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,48,435.60/-. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in M.W Appeal No. 4 of 2012 by the Deputy Labour Commissionercum Appellate Authority (respondent no. 2) whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as barred by limitation.
(3.)The factual background of the case is that the respondent no. 4 being the General Secretary of Jharkhand General Kamgar Union instituted a case vide M.W Case No. 89 of 2008 under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alleging that Anil Kumar Pandey (concerned workman) had worked under the petitioner for 16 hours per day, but he has been paid less wages by the employerpetitioner. The respondent no. 3 vide order dated 20.03.2010 accepted the claim of the respondent no. 4 in part and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 89,687.12/- and five times compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,48,435.60/-. It is alleged by the petitioner that the case was heard on 06.10.2009 and reserved for the final order. Suddenly, the order was passed on 20.03.2010, but the same was not communicated to it. It is only in the month of July, 2012 when the petitioner received a letter dated 05.06.2012 from the respondent no. 3 for compliance of the order dated 20.03.2010, it came to know about the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order dated 20.03.2010 and filed an appeal before the respondent no. 2 vide M.W Appeal No. 4 of 2012. The respondent no. 2 while taking up the appeal has observed in the impugned order dated 21.01.2017 that the petitioner has made an application for condonation of delay, wherein it has submitted that it got the knowledge of the order in appeal dated 20.03.2010 only in the month of July 2010 and the appeal has been filed on 24.08.2012 i.e., after about 856 days and as such, the same is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 20(6) of the Act, 1948.