ORDER
V.C. Misra, J.
1. Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Ms. Kirtika Singh learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Sarita Jingan, holding belief of Sri P. C. Jingan, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 (i) to (iv) are present.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the matter may be remanded back to the prescribed authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, to be decided afresh, since admittedly, the petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing inspite of the fact that the cost of Rs, 50 had been imposed by respondent No. 1 which was paid on 20.1.1991, the prescribed authority had committed a gross violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if there is a dispute as to whether hearing should be permitted or not then the most reasonable course open to the Court is to provide hearing, since the right of hearing has always been a paramount concern, and even If two views are possible, the stand which gives opportunity of hearing should be adopted. In this respect he has relied upon a decision in the case of Ramji Dass and Ors. v. Mohan Singh, 1978 ARC 496, wherein it has been observed that ‘as far as possible, courts discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not shut out hearing’.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that out of 90 persons had signed on the agreement and settlement dated 26.9.1986 whereas 6 persons had declined to accept. Now the dispute before the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act is only confined to 6 persons,
5, I have looked into the record and heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In view of the said facts, circumstances of the case and observations made hereinbefore, the impugned orders dated 16.5.1991, 3.8.1991. 21.8.1991 and 28.8.1991 (Annexures-8, 9. 12 and 14 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 1 under the Payment of Wages Act in the Case No. 897 of 1987 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed with the direction to the prescribed authority to proceed with the case de novo after affording full opportunity of filing of the pleas, leading of evidence and hearing to the parties and shall also consider and dispose of any preliminary objection if so raised by the parties. Since the case is quite old. the Prescribed Authority shall dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within six months from today and the parties shall extend their full cooperation in the proceedings.
6. No order as to costs.