PRABHU DAS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employer and respondent No. 3 Shri Mana Ram was working with the petitioner as his truck driver. He submitted an application under Section 15 (2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Pali on July 26, 1993 inter alia contending that he was not paid wages of Rs. 12,600/ -. Notice on that application was duly served upon the petitioner employer and even reply (Annex. 2) was filed before the authority not only that he also engaged a counsel to defend his case. Thereafter, issues were framed by the authority on November 29, 1993 and, then, the case was kept for recording evidence of the parties from December 18, 1993 to December 20, 1995 on about 25 different dates. The evidence of the employee was recorded only on December 27, 1995 as per the order sheet (Annex. 3 ). Nobody was appearing for the petitioner employer before the authority, therefore, on April 21, 1995 fresh notice was ordered to be issued and it was kept on May 30, 1995 and then on July 18, 1995. By that time another Presiding Officer came, who passed the order ex parte proceedings against the petitioner on July 18, 1995 and after recording evidence of the employee on December 27, 1995 the ex parte decree/order was passed on January 3, 1996 for the sum of Rs. 12,225/- (Annex. 4) and later on notice dated May 15, 1996 (Annex. 5) was issued for payment of said amount.

(2.) IT is the case of present petitioner-employer that he came to know about the ex parte order dated January 3, 1996 and notice dated May 15, 1996 only on October 4, 1996, therefore, when S. D. O. Bali came for recovery of said amount he immediately contacted his counsel Shri Bhagirath Chandora on October 23, 1996 and on the same date he applied for certified copy of the ex parte order dated January 3, 1996 and on receiving the same, an application was made to set aside the ex parte order on November 7, 1996. On that application, notices were ordered to be issued and after hearing the parties his application was rejected by an order dated December 20, 1996 (Annex. 7 ). That order was challenged by way of appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the appellate authority which was also dismissed. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner relying upon the Apex Court Judgment in case of Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh, reported in AIR 1998 SC 258 submitted that the authority and the appellate authority both committed grave error in not setting aside the ex parte decree/order. In para No. 11 of the writ petition an averment is made that the petitioner was not in fault and it was his counsel who did not represent his case properly before the authority and did not inform him about the latest position of the case. He, therefore submits that the case on hand is similar to the case of Malkiat Singh (supra) therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authority as well as by the appellate authority be set aside and the matter be remanded to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act.