D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , in this writ application, has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) For quashing the order dated -14.02.2007 (Annexurc -9), passed in M.W. Appeal No. 1 of 2006 -07, by the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, whereby the prayer of the petitioner filed in the appeal preferred by him under Section 20(6A) of the Minimum Wages Act, for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal has been rejected. (b) For quashing the Notice dated -14.11.2006 (Annexure -7), issued by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 01 (M.W./06 -07) whereby a direction was issued to the petitioner to pay the certificate amount of Rs. 1,39,041.57/ -. (c) For issuance of a direction to the appellate court to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits. (d) For staying the proceedings of the impugned orders, passed in the Ceitificate proceedings.
(2.) COUNTER affidavits have been filed on behalf of the private Respondent No. 3 as also the Respondent -State. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) MR . Pandey Neeraj Roy, learned Counsel for the petitione , while assailing both the impugned orders, would submit that upon receipt of the notice in the certificate proceedings, the petitioner had filed his objections under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act. The impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit the Certificate amount was passed by the Certificate Officer purportedly under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, by way of an ex parte order with an observation that the petitioner had failed io appear in the proceedings on the date fixed. Learned Counsel contends that even though the Certificate Officer could have passed an ex parte order but considering the fact that the petitioner had appeared in the proceedings and had filed his objections stating specific grounds in support of such objection, the Certificate Officer could not have proceeded to impose the financial liability by making the demand for payment of the certificate amount, without first considering and discussing the objections raised by the petitioner. As regards the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, learned Counsel explains that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Authority in the proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order. There being a delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner had filed a separate application praying for condoning the delay on the ground that the delay was occasioned due to the petitioner's ill less. A medical Certificate was enclosed alongwith the petition for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, according to the learned Counsel, has erroneously refused to condone the delay merely on the ground that the bona fides of the certificate appears to be doubtful in view of the fact that the petitioner being a resident of West Singhbhum, had obtained the Certificate from the Doctor stationed at East Singhbhum. Learned Counsel argues that the learned Appellate court below had failed to consider the fact that though the Doctor concerned was employed as an Assistant Civil Surgeon in East Singhbhum but is basically a resident of Chaibasa in West Singhbhum and the petitioner being also a resident of the same town did have occasion to undergo treatment under the said Doctor. Learned Counsel adds further that the petitioner has categorically stated in the grounds of Appeal as also in the objections filed by him in the Certificate proceedings that he cannot under any circumstance be saddled with any liability to pay the wages as demanded by the Respondent No. 3 and if his appeal is not considered on merits, the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice.;