VIKAS KATYAYAN Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 17.5.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2009, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the learned lower Appellate Court has upheld the orders of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, refusing to recall the ex-parte order passed against the present petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent filed an application under Section 15, sub-section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the Commissioner appointed under the Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. said Act. Admittedly, the present petitioner was served in the said case. He engaged a counsel. The counsel could not appear on 20.6.2007, when the case was fixed for filing reply on behalf of the respondent. Respondent was, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, the counsel moved an application supported by the affidavit of the present petitioner that the ex-parte proceedings be set aside. This application was also dismissed in default and final ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner on 26.5.2008. According to the petitioner, he was unaware about the ex-parte proceedings and came to know about the same only in the year 2009 when execution petition was filed and then he applied for a copy of the order of the Commissioner and received the same on 18th July, 2009. Thereafter, a fresh application was moved for setting aside the ex-parte order. In this application, virtually no ground was stated for setting aside the ex-parte order except that due to some unavoidable reason, the counsel for applicant could not put in appearance before the Court.

(3.) This explanation, to say the least, is extremely vague. Admittedly, the application was move more than one year after the ex-parte order had been passed. However, neither any application for condonation of delay was filed nor even in the application filed, any worthwhile reasons were given for condoning the delay. Even if the averments made in the application are accepted to be the gospel truth, as held by the lower Appellate Court, no ground is made out to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. There is no illegality committed by any of the courts below.