Sangeeta Chandra,J. - (1.) The case was called out in the pre-lunch Session. It has been listed peremptorily. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava was present as counsel for the petitioner. However, there was a request on behalf of Mr. Bagish Kumar Shukla that the matter be taken up in the revised call. It has been taken up in the revised call. Mr. Bagish Kumar Shukla has appeared and has prayed for adjournment. This Court does not find any good ground to adjourn the matter as the counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the matter has been listed peremptorily.
(2.) It has been submitted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava that the opposite party No. 2 was engaged as a driver in the Corporation and due to rash and negligent driving the bus met with an accident on 14.08.1997. Under the Service Rules applicable, he was put under suspension by an order of the competent authority on 18.08.1997 and a charge sheet was issued to him to which he submitted his reply. After regular disciplinary proceedings the allegations were found proved and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. A copy of the inquiry report was served upon the opposite party No. 2 to which he submitted his reply. A show cause notice was also issued to him as to why payment of his dues for suspension period may not be forfeited. The opposite party No. 2 replied to the same, but his explanation was not found satisfactory and he was reinstated but for the period he remained under suspension, he was not granted full pay under the principle of "no work no pay".
(3.) Instead of challenging the order passed by the competent authority in appeal, the opposite party No. 2 filed an application under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act saying that wrongful deduction of salary had been made for the period starting w.e.f. 18.08.1997 to 25.09.1997. A notice was issued to the petitioner, but the same was never received by the petitioner Corporation. The opposite party No. 1 proceeded on the basis of the presumption of service and by an ex-parte order allowed the application on 15.07.2004. When the order dated 15.07.2004 was communicated to the petitioner, it filed an application for recall through its counsel Shri Arvind Bihari Srivastava. Some mistake was there in the application and an amendment application was moved, which was allowed on the cost of Rs. 100/- being deposited. The cost was not deposited, nor the amendment was carried out in the application.;