Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10554 of 1994
Modi Vanspati MFG. Co.
Versus
Mr. Shiv Charan, Additional Labour Commissioner
& others
Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.
In the present case proceedings under Payment of Wages Act had
been initiated before prescribed Authority. In the said proceeding petitioner
had entered appearance and took objection that claim set up was time
barred and coupled with this issue which is being sought to be raised was
industrial dispute, as such not competent. In the said proceedings,
29.10.1992 was the date fixed and the next date fixed in the matter was
26.11.1992 as petitioners were absent. After the said date has been fixed, it
appears that petitioner has entered appearance and next date fixed was
03.12.1992 and at the point of time when said date was fixed petitioner was
asked to inform claimant of the said said date and thereafter 03.12.1992
was the next date fixed. Thereafter 07.01.1993 was date fixed and on
07.01.1993 petitioners were present and then 02.02.1993 was the date
fixed and on 02.02.1993 claimants were present and defendants were not
present and then 11.03.1993 was the next date fixed and the said date
orders were passed and after the said order has been passed application
has been moved for recalling of the order and said order has been recalled.
At this juncture present writ petition had been filed.
Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter
present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.
Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with
vehemence that in the present case once due information has been given to
the claimant then there was no occasion to recall the order as has been
done in the present case and as such writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Countering the said submission Sri Shyam Narain, Advocate on the
other hand contended that admitted position is that order passed was
exparte without informing the claimant, in this background rightfully order
has been recalled and case was restored back to its original number. In this
2
background no interference should be made.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position
which is reflected that earlier 26.11.1992 was the date fixed and the said
date was deferred. Qua the same specific case of the claimants is that there
was no information or notice of the aforesaid date being changed, as such
they could not entere appearance and no information has been furnished by
petitioner. This fact has come on record that no written information was
furnished to the claimant qua preponement of the case. In such a situation
and in this background once Prescribed Authority was satisfied that
sufficient cause has been furnished for non-appearance when case in
question was called out, in this background has proceeded to recall the
order and restored the matter back to its original number then there is no
occasion for this Court to interfere with the said order.
Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However
as matter is old one as such concerned Prescribed Authority is directed to
decide the matter preferably within six months after providing opportunity
of hearing to the parties concerned and also by deciding the objection
raised by petitioner specially in respect of the fact that matter should be
referred for industrial adjudication and is time barred.
No order as to cost.
Dated 12.07.2010
Dhruv