Raj Mohan Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936-Cirlce I, Faridabad, whereby application of the respondent for restoration of the case was allowed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed a claim petition against the petitioner alleging that petitioner is responsible for wages under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). Respondent No.2 claimed salary for eight months as well as compensation amount to ten times of the amount claimed. The claim of respondent No.2 was contested by the petitioner.
(3.) In due course, the case came up for hearing before the Authority and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 29.04.2011. An application was filed by respondent No.2 for restoration of the claim petition on 13.03.2013 on the ground that when the case was fixed for 15.04.2011, it was adjourned for 29.04.2011. The previous counsel/authorised representative of the claimant told the applicant/respondent No.2 that his appearance was not necessary and as and when his presence was felt necessary, he would be intimated. Thereafter, respondent No.2 could not get any information of the case from his counsel and ultimately he filed an application under Right to Information Act before the Labour Commissioner. Thereafter he came to know that the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequent proceedings were filed thereafter.;