NATIONAL TEXTILES CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 26-05-2012 in restoration petition I.A. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, the 1st respondent herein, whereby the application P.W. No. 37 of 2003 filed by Respondents 2 to 207 claiming the minimum regular wages under the provisions of the Act has been restored. Respondents 2 to 207 (hereafter referred to as, 'unofficial respondents') claim to have been appointed as Main Gate Badali Workers in Anantapur Cotton Mills Limited, Yerraguntapalli Village, Anantapur District, 02nd respondent (sic. petitioner) herein. They filed claim petition before the Competent Authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, the 1st Respondent herein, complaining that their wages have not been paid since December 1998 without any justification and sought for a direction to pay the same. The petitioners herein did not file counter after receiving summons and remained ex parte. Therefore, an ex parte order was passed on 05-03-2004 in favour of the unofficial respondents. The petitioners thereupon filed application I.A. No. 1 of 2005 seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The application was allowed and the claim petition was restored and the case was posted for the evidence of the unofficial respondents on 20-02-2010. The unofficial respondents were absent and the claim petition was dismissed for default on the same date i.e., 20-02-2010. The unofficial respondents thereupon filed the instant application I.A. No. 1 of 2010 to set aside the dismissal order. They pleaded that they could not attend the enquiry since their counsel was sick and the posting date was not informed to them. The application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the matter had already undergone adjournments and the sickness of the Advocate could not be a valid ground and the unofficial respondents themselves could have attended the enquiry.

(2.) On considering the said pleadings, the competent authority was convinced that it is a fit case for setting aside the dismissal order and on observing that prejudice would not be caused to the petitioners and on the other hand the rights of the unofficial respondents would be affected, allowed the petition and set aside the dismissal order. It is against this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while reiterating the aforesaid contentions, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The reasons assigned by unofficial respondents for restoration of the claim petition are not sufficient as atleast one of them could have attended the enquiry and informed the 1st respondent about the sickness of their counsel. The counsel further submits that industry has already been declared as sick industry under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'SICA Act') and a scheme has been framed under the said Act. Hence, the proceedings before the Authority under the Payment of wages Act cannot be maintained by the unofficial respondents as per the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act.