- (1.) This writ petition is in a second round of litigation in this Court. The writ arises in the circumstances, that the claim was filed against the petitioner, by the respondent No.2, before the respondent No.1, under the Minimum Wages Act, wherein, on 4.10.2002, an exparte award was passed, against which writ No.4295/02 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of by withdrawal on 23.2.2004, as therein a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents, that by virtue of Rule 29(4) of the Minimum Wages Rules, the petitioner has a remedy of moving application before the learned authority itself, for setting aside the exparte proceedings, and this Court, noticing that the writ was filed promptly on 22.10.2002 itself, permitted the petitioner, even in the year 2004, to approach the authority by moving appropriate application under Rule 29(4) within a period of two weeks from that date, and it was also directed, that in case, petitioner files that application under Rule 29(4) within a period of two weeks from today, the learned authority shall consider the application on its own merits objectively and dispassionately. Thereafter according to the petitioner, application was submitted on 10.3.2004, and the same has been rejected vide impugned order (Annex.7) dated 25.3.2004, on the ground of limitation.
(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that he applied for certified copy of the order of this Court dated 23.2.2004 on 24.2.2004, and the copy was received on 25.2.2004, and computing period of two weeks from that date, the application was submitted within time, which could not be dismissed. It is also contended, that this Court, in the order dated 23.2.2004, had clearly directed the authority to consider the application on merits objectively and dispassionately, and therefore, it was not open to the learned authority to dismiss the application on the technical ground of delay.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted, that apart from the fact that it was made clear in the order dated 23.2.2004, that application was to be filed within two weeks from that date, by using the expression within a period of two weeks from today, and therefore, the application was required to be filed latest by 8.3.2004, while it has been filed on 10.3.2004. The other thing submitted was, that this Court had directed the learned authority to consider the application on its own merits objectively and dispassionately, if the application was filed within two weeks, obviously not otherwise, and therefore, the learned authority was well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the application as barred by time.;