PAL RADIATOR AND OIL COLLER Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the present writ petition the petitioner has made a request for quashing the impugned orders dated 21.05.2014, 21.02.2013 and 17.09.2013 passed by the Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and running an establishment which is covered under the Act. Its employees filed an application under Section 21 (2) of the Act claiming their due earned wages for the period from 01.08.2012 to 09.09.2012. The Authority under the Act on 08.11.2012 issued a notice to the petitioner through speed post for 14.12.2012. On 14.12.2012, the Authority again issued notice to the petitioner/respondent through courier for 04.02.2013. On 04.02.2013, the Authority under the Act adjourned the matter for 21.02.2013 awaiting the courier service report. Thereafter, 21.02.2013 the Authority had proceeded ex -parte against the petitioner on the basis of report of service through courier. Thereafter, the Authority under the Act after recording the evidences of the workers, on the basis of material before it, passed the order dated 17.09.2013 whereby the claim of the workmen/respondents was allowed and the management/petitioner was directed to pay the due earned wages of the said period to the workmen/respondents. The claim of the respondents relating to minimum wages for the said period was however rejected by the Authority. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 16.12.2013 for setting aside the ex -parte order dated 17.09.2013. The respondents replied the said application vide reply dated 08.01.2014. Vide order 21.05.2014, the Authority dismissed the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex -parte order dated 17.09.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed CWP No.8207/2014 challenging the impugned order but withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh petition along with courier report. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition whereby he has challenged the order of the Authority on the ground that he was never served of summon and notice of the proceedings initiated before the Authority. It is further contended that the factum of service upon a party is rebuttable presumption and once it is rebutted by the statement of a party coupled with the surrounding circumstances, the Court should give the party a chance to contest. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been denied the right to defend on a technical ground and this has led to the failure to substantive justice. It is further submitted that service by courier is not an effective service and only a deemed status of service and hence the court should allow the party to contest the matter. It is further submitted that there was no document before the Authority to presume the due service upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner otherwise has a good case on merit. On these facts, it is prayed that the orders dated 21.05.2014, 17.09.2013 and 21.02.2013 may be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Mr. Anil Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.