JAYANTILAL PATEL Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.B. Dastoor for the petitioner.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Dastoor states that he is prepared to deposit the amount as directed by the Minimum Wages Authority provided that Review Application may be decided by Minimum Wages Authority on merits. He is also ready to pay the cost. Notice which has been issued by the Minimum Wages Authority has not been received by the petitioner. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr.Dastoor and no decision is relied by him.

(3.) The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. Umiya Stone Industry, Chhogamda, Sabarkantha District considered as non-applicant. The application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was filed by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central-I) on 18.9.2003 before the Minimum Wages Authority. The above claim was for the payment of wages less than the minimum rates of wages fixed by Government payable by the non-applicant, means, petitioner to 11 workers at his establishment - Stone Mining and crushing in Dhansura, Sabarkantha District. The hearing was fixed on 4.9.2003, 25.9.2003 and finally on 22.10.2003. The applicant was present on the said hearing but, petitioner was not present in spite of the fact that notices issued by the authority were served on him by RPAD post. Therefore, the applicant requested the authority that the petitioner is avoiding appearance and requested to proceed ex-parte. The authority has considered the request and under Rule 29(2) decided to proceed ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the authority. The inspection report dated 22.6.2003 was considered by the authority, where advised to pay difference of wages to concerned workman, but petitioner failed to make payments to workmen and petitioner remained absent before authority. The petitioner has also not replied to the notice and not attended the hearing fixed by the authority and according to authority, it amounts to exploiting the poor workers by evading even payment of statutory minimum wages to them. The documents Inspection Note, Inspection Report, Statement of Applicant produced on record by inspector were relied by the authority and ultimately, by order dated 28.12.2003, the Minimum Wages Authority granted total amount with 10 times compensation of Rs.3,27,470.44 paisa under the provision of Section 20(3) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thereafter, the recovery certificate was issued by Minimum Wages Authority (Central). The aforesaid certificate issued was under Section 20(5) of Minimum Wages Act on 2.2.2007. The application was made by petitioner to the authority on 19.06.2007 for setting aside ex-parte order and also to set aside the order dated 2.4.2007. The authority has considered the application filed by petitioner and considered the record of the proceedings on 11/13.8.2003, claim applications were filed before the authority. The authority issued notice on 25.8.2003 by RPAD fixing the hearing on 4.9.2003. The acknowledgment slip duly by petitioner on 29.8.2003 is available in file. Thereafter, again, the matter was adjourned and hearing was fixed on 25.9.2003 and finally, on 2.10.2003. The authority communicated the ex-parte order dated 28.10.2003 by RPAD the receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 7.11.2003. Acknowledgment slip is also available in file. Therefore, the authority has considered that petitioner remained absent though notices issued by the authority were served and the ex-parte order was also served on 7.11.2003. The application made by the petitioner after a period of more than 3 years was rejected as per Sub Rule 4 of Rule 29 of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. Under Sub Rule (2) or Sub Rule (3) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, the order passed by the authority can be re-opened only within one month from the date of the said order. Therefore, considering the application made by petitioner after a period of 3 and 1/2 years, the authority has observed that the said application is time barred and it cannot be re-opened and accordingly rejected the same. Before that and after ex parte order, one reminder letter dated 09.02.2004 was served to the petitioner to deposit the amounts as ordered within 7 days. Moreover, after receipt of recovery application dated 23.09.2006 from the authority and before issuing recovery certificate to the District Collector by authority letter dated 27.11.2006.