BINAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. On repeated call, no body appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3-worker to whom notices were already served and Vakalatnama has also been filed on his behalf.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the impugned order dated 10th April, 2002 passed by Shri S.K. Chand, Regional Labour Commissioner, Patna, Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is bad in law and fit to be quashed since in absence of any condonation petition for condoning the delay in filing the application filed by the workmen- Union. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 an application for Wages Act has to be filed within a period of six months. But neither the application was filed within time nor any application was filed for condoning the delay. It has further been stated that the impugned order as also the notice for realization as contained in Annexure 1 dated 7.4.2004 be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in Devendra Nath Ghosh V/s. State of Bihar,1987 PLJR 1114 by which the Hon'ble Court has quashed the notice as also the impugned order since without passing any order of condoning delay in filing the application and without hearing the party, the impugned order was passed.