- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent nos.1 to 5. Although Power has been filed by Shri Pravin Tewari, Advocate on behalf of opposite party nos.7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 36 but he has not appeared to assist this Court. Shri Surendra Pal Singh, Advocate has also filed his power on behalf of opposite party nos.6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 32 and 37. He is also not present to assist this Court. There is no prayer for adjournment also.
(2.) This Court has perused the counter affidavit filed by the private-respondents as also the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents in the matter. Since it is seven years old matter, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to adjourn the case today.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.3 allegedly filed an application under Section 2 of Sub Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and on such application being filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer, the Dy. Labour Commissioner issued a notice under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to the petitioner. When the Amin of respondent no.4 had come to the premises of the petitioner's Establishment alongwith Recovery Citation dated 20.04.2012, the petitioner came to know of the said Minimum Wages case having been filed and decided against it on 31.12.2011. No other notice was served on the petitioner's Establishment although there is a mention in the order impugned that the said notice was served by the Labour Enforcement Officer on the Manager of the store, no such notice was ever served.;