SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MANGALORE, BYCOMPADIA, MANGALORE Vs. LABOUR OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 SOUTH-CANARA, SUB-DIVISION MANGALORE -1, SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR 4TH CIRCLE, MANGALORE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECRETARY of APMC, Mangalore is seeking quashing of the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by Labour Officer and competent authority Sub -Division -1, Mangalore in MWA:CR -31/2008, Annexure -A.

(2.) HEARD Sri. Sangamesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Perused the impugned order.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and as also grounds urged by learned counsel for petitioner, it is noticed that on registering the claim petitions, notices have been issued to the parties i.e., petitioner and third respondent herein. Having received the said notices from the competent authority, petitioner herein has sent a reply on 07.01.2009 stating that the secretary of APMC, Mangalore is proceeding on official duty to Bangalore and is unable to attend the proceedings on the date fixed and sought for adjournment. Accordingly competent authority adjourned the matter to 20.04.2009 to enable the petitioner to appear on the said date i.e., 20.04.2009. Thereafter also authority has issued notice and in reply another adjournment was sought for by the petitioner. Thereafter matter has been adjourned to 18.05.2009, 08.06.2009, 22.06.2009, 29.06.2009 on which dates the petitioner has not appeared inspite of service of summons. Hence, left with no other option, competent authority has rightly proceeded to hold service of notice on petitioner herein as sufficient and had placed exparte. In view of the said factual matrix, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that there was lack of opportunity to appear and contest before the authority lacks merit and said contention is contrary to facts. Hence said contention is hereby rejected.