- (1.) This special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5 November 2015 by which the writ petition that was filed by the appellant for challenging the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been dismissed.
(2.) The appellant is a unit of the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited. A survey was conducted by the Labour Enforcement Officer under the Act. According to the appellant, it was observed during the course of the survey and in the inspection note prepared by the Labour Enforcement Officer that in the establishment of the appellant certain employees engaged by the contractor were working and that the contractor was paying wages lower than the minimum wages fixed by the State Government. The Labour Enforcement Officer filed a claim petition under Sec. 20(2) of the Act against the appellant which was registered as M.W. Case No. 442 of 2001. The appellant was made a party to the case as the principal employer. According to the appellant, it was only on 3 May 2015 when the Collection Amin visited the establishment on behalf of the Collector and demanded an amount of Rs. 27,00,156/ - together with the collection charges on the basis of an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16 July 2003 (in pursuance of an ex parte order dated 27 March 2002) that the appellant obtained knowledge of the proceedings. A recovery citation has been issued by the Collector on 29 April 2015. According to the appellant, it was upon the service of the recovery citation that the appellant obtained knowledge of the fact that an ex parte order had been passed by the Prescribed Authority on 27 March 2002. The appellant moved an application for recalling the ex parte order on 15 May 2015. A reply was filed to the application by the Labour Enforcement Officer stating that the notice of the proceedings was remitted to the appellant through the process server and by registered post and since it had not been returned back, there was a presumption of service. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, in another writ proceeding instituted by the appellant, the Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 18 September 2015 rejecting the recall application. Aggrieved, the appellant instituted a writ petition to challenge both the orders, being the order on the recall application and the original order of the Prescribed Authority. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 5 November 2015. The learned Single Judge has held that the restoration application does not mention that any efforts were made by the appellant for searching in its office as to whether the notice has been served and that the appellant had not produced its receipt and dispatch registers before the Prescribed Authority. Moreover, it was held that since the award of the Prescribed Authority was passed on 27 March 2002, the restoration application which was filed in 2015 was beyond the period prescribed by Rule 29 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and since the rule did not provide for any relaxation of the period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 stood ousted. The writ petition challenging the order of 27 March 2002 has been held not to be maintainable on the ground of an unexplained delay of thirteen years.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the present case the contention of the appellant all along has been that there was no notice by the Prescribed Authority. As a matter of fact, the Labour Enforcement Officer merely relied upon a general presumption that since the notice has been dispatched by registered post, it should be presumed to have been served on the appellant and there was no need of actual service. Further, it was also urged that the learned Single Judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that the application which was filed by the appellant upon obtaining knowledge of the original order, following the service of the recovery citation in 2015, could not be entertained on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 29(4) of the Rules. Finally, it was submitted that the appellant is a government entity and to establish its bona fides, it is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount. Learned counsel submitted that this is a case where the appellant should be given a due and proper opportunity since it is its contention that the actual payment which was made to the workmen was in excess of the minimum wages. Moreover, as a matter of fact, the Prescribed Authority imposed a demand of five times the actual difference thereby saddling a huge liability of Rs. 27,00,000/ - upon the appellant. In another case, it was urged that the authority had not imposed such a large demand.;