- (1.) THE present writ petition is a classic case where a multi national company seeks to drag a poor workman -respondent no. 4 in all Forums by taking recourse to its sound financial status and to oppose the claim of a paltry principal amount of Rs. 24,961/ -.
(2.) THE facts of the case would go on to show the conduct of the petitioner -company which shows how the poor workman can be harassed to no end. The claim of the workman in his application filed was only that he was not being paid at par with the similarly situated co -workers who were employed in the organization of the respondent. He had filed a complaint before the Labour Officer, Panipat and his services were terminated. Accordingly, he filed the application dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P -13) claiming the arrears of less payment made to him during his course of employment before the authority notified under The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short 'the Act').
(3.) INITIALLY , ex parte proceedings were conducted against the petitioner but an application came to be filed for setting aside the said ex parte order before the authority, which was allowed vide order dated 09.10.2012. Thereafter, the stand taken by the petitioner -company was that the dues had been paid regularly and the applicant had been habitual in leaving duties without information for hours and had absented for hours and not attended duties from April, 2012 and sought an advance of Rs. 5,000/ - which was given. He was given a warning to be punctual. It was further averred that he had been paid the total arrears, if any, due details of which are given in the reply filed by the management and nothing remained due. When the case was fixed for evidence, the petitioner was again proceeded against ex parte and eventually, the application was allowed on 26.02.2013 (Annexure P -5) by holding that the applicant -respondent no. 4 was entitled to sum of Rs. 24,941/ -, which the petitioner was directed to deposit within 30 days failing which, compensation was to be paid. When recovery proceedings were initiated by the workman, an application was filed on 17.04.2013 for setting aside the order passed by the Authority. The Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was behaving mischievously and delaying the proceedings and wasting the time of the Court and dismissed the application with costs of Rs. 1,000/ -. The relevant portion reads thus: - "After going through the file, I come to the conclusion that the respondents are mischievously delaying the proceeding of the case by proceeded exparte again and they are filling application for setting aside the ex -parte order. That application was filed after the delay and respondent is mischievously delaying the grant of relief to the claimant and wasting the time of the Court. At this stage the application is not maintainable. The respondent's application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/ - and it is ordered that according to the order dated 26.2.2013 the order amount and cost should be paid immediately in the Court. The order was announced in the court. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority against the initial order dated 26.02.2013 which had become barred by that time and an application for condonation of delay was also filed alongwith it taking the plea that another counsel had been engaged for setting aside the ex parte order but he had withdrawn that application and did not inform the company about the fate of the application and they came to know only when they received notice from the Court of CJM, Sonepat on 04.09.2013. The Additional District Judge, Sonepat dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide judgment dated 03.03.2014, which is now the subject matter of challenge apart from the earlier orders dated 26.02.2013 and 17.04.2013 passed by the Authority under the Act. The Additional District Judge noticed the history of the case and came to the conclusion that the appeal was not only barred by limitation but an effort to conceal the true facts had been made on behalf of the petitioner to harass the employee and misuse the process of Court and dismissed the application. The reasoning given by the Appellate Authority reads thus: - "5. On perusal of application for condonation of delay the name of Manager, who was present on behalf of appellant has not been disclosed nor his affidavit has been attached that he was present on 10.01.2013 and his presence was not marked. No material has been placed by appellant to show that appellant had protected against non marking of presence of its authorized representative to any authority at any stage. Perusal of order dated 17.04.2013 passed by Authority under payment of Wages Act further goes to show that application moved by Sh. Anil Kumar for setting aside ex -parte order was not withdrawn by Sh. Anil Ranga but was dismissed on merits finding the same to be an efforts to delay the proceedings. The said application for setting aside exparte order was dismissed by Authority under Payment of Wages Act with costs of Rs. 1000/ -. It is therefore clearly made out that as far as ex -parte order dated 26.02.2013 is concerned same was within knowledge of appellant at least on 17.04.2013 when it had moved application for setting aside ex -parte order dated 26.02.2013. Even from 17.04.2013 filing of present appeal on 12.09.2013 is highly belated. The reasoning given by appellant that Sh. Anil Ranga Adv. had not informed regarding proceeding is totally without any merit, cannot be accepted in absence of any material to accept the same specially when appellant has given the facts wrongly by stating that Anil Kumar has withdrawn the same whereas application of appellant was dismissed with costs on merits. Present petition is not only barred by limitation but an efforts to conceal the true facts. Present appeal seems to be an effort on the part of employer to harass employee while appearing as per its choice and misuse the process of Court by moving repeated application for setting aside ex -parte orders.;