V.C.Misra, J. - (1.) Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Ms. Kirtika Singh learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Sarita Jingan, holding belief of Sri P. C. Jingan, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 (i) to (iv) are present.
(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the matter may be remanded back to the prescribed authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, to be decided afresh, since admittedly, the petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing inspite of the fact that the cost of Rs, 50 had been imposed by respondent No. 1 which was paid on 20.1.1991, the prescribed authority had committed a gross violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if there is a dispute as to whether hearing should be permitted or not then the most reasonable course open to the Court is to provide hearing, since the right of hearing has always been a paramount concern, and even If two views are possible, the stand which gives opportunity of hearing should be adopted. In this respect he has relied upon a decision in the case of Ramji Dass and Ors. v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496, wherein it has been observed that 'as far as possible, courts discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not shut out hearing'.;