K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, initiated at the instance of the opposite party Mo. 3 Ramesh Verma in the present writ petition.
(2.) The claim of Shri Ramesh Verma was contested by the petitioner through Annexure III attached with writ petition. The prescribed authority gave judgment for the aforesaid Ramesh Verma as is evident from Annexure VII attached with the writ petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the prescribed authority which was dismissed by the appellate court through Annexure VIII on 18.8.1981. Thereafter an application was moved for recalling the order dated 18.8.1982 and restoring the appeal to its original number but the application was rejected on 12.7.1982 as is evident from Annexure XVII attached with the writ petition. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for quashing Annexures VIII and XVII.
(3.) The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that there is no provision under the Act empowering the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, hence the appellate court acted illegally in dismissing the appeal on 18.8.1981 and it also committed patent error in not restoring the appeal to its original number through its order, dated 12.7.1982. It has been stressed before me that if the appeal is not heard on merits, the petitioner shall suffer great prejudice and irreparable loss. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Court of Article 226 of the Constitution. He has emphasized that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to comply with the order of the Court but the petitioner failed to comply with the same hence he should not be permitted to rake up the controversy again. It is the improper conduct of the petitioner which has brought the impugned orders against him and he should thank himself and the proceeding should not be reopened in the circumstances of the present case. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party has mainly relied upon Head Note (a) of the ruling reported in Asiatic Engineering Company v. Asroo Ram and Ors. AIR 1951 All 746.;