- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the ex parte order of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (hereinafter to be called the Authority) dated January 28, 1985 (Annexure 2) directing the payment of Rs. 9, 168. 45 as difference-amount of wages (minimum paid) and Rs. 73,347. 60 as compensation under Section 20, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and also order dated August 25, 1988 (Annexure 3) of the Authority dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the said ex parte order. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON October 5, 1984 Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Bhilwara (respondent No. 2) (in short the Inspector) filed six applications under Section 20 (2) of the Act in the prescribed form for direction to pay the difference of wages arising out of less payment of wages than the minimum and compensation. Their details are as follows:JUDGEMENT_17_TLRAJ0_1992Html1.htm All these six cases were consolidated. Despite sufficient service of the notices, the employer (writ petitioner) did not turn up and as such the Authority proceeded ex parte against him. Ex parte order granting Rs. 9168. 45 as the difference amount and Rs. 73,347. 60 as compensation, total Rs. 82,516. 05 in respect of all claim petitions was passed. On March 25, 1985, an application for setting aside this ex parte common order was moved. Despite service of the notices intimating the dates of its hearing, the employer (writ petitioner) did not turn up. As such the application was dismissed by order dated August 25, 1988 (Annex. 3)
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notices of the claim petitions and the notice of the application for setting aside the said ex parte common order were not personally served upon the employer (writ petitioner ). There is no force in this contention. Para No. 6 of the writ petition runs as under: "6. That the unfortunate lot of the petitioner is that the partners of the petitioner firm live in Calcutta and their factory in Rajasthan is being looked after by the general power of attorney holder Shri Kashinath Rajgadhia and in the administration again in turn the matter of this labour problems was being handled by one employee Shri Harendra Singh and in the sequence of this all summons and notices whatever were addressed to the petitioner, were received by Shri Harendra Singh, but for reasons best known, he did not bring to the notice of Shri Kashinath Rajgadhia also having received notice from respondent No. 1 or about the initiation of the proceedings, with the result that notwithstanding to be claim being ex facie false did not come to be defended. ";