BALI RAM SARRAF Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the employer, has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, directing the petitioner-employer to pay Rs. 300/- as arrear wages plus compensation and cost.

(2.) The workman concerned filed the application under Section 20 (2) of the Act on the 15th November, 1965, claiming arrear wages due to him for the period from the 1st February 1963, to the 31st July, 1963. The claim was prima facie barred by limitation unless, by virtue of the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of that Act, the delay in filing the application could be condoned by the authority. No express prayer for condoning the delay was however, made in the application (An-nexure A). But, on receipt of the same, the authority issued a notice on the petitioner (Annexure B) to show cause on the 21st July, 1966 The petitioner, however, did not enter appearance but sent his show cause petition (Annexure C), dated the 11th July. 1966. by post. In this show cause petition, the petitioner did not raise any objection to the claim of the workman on the ground of delay. It appears that thereafter, when the case was fixed for hearing on the 5th September, 1966, the petitioner did not enter appearance, and, on the ex parte evidence of the worker, the authority, by one order, condoned the delay, and then granted him relief, as prayed for.

(3.) Mr. Uday Sinha for the petitioner urged that the authority should have, first, given the petitioner an opportunity to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. He also urged that the notice served on the petitioner should have been in the form prescribed (Form IX) attached to the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, and not in the form as was sent in Annexure B.