(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who appears for the State-respondents.
(2) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the ex-parte judgement/order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and also the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the same Authority rejecting the Recall Application of the petitioner.
(3) The record was summoned earlier from the office of the opposite party no.2 which has been produced before this Court today by the learned Standing Counsel.
(4) From perusal of the record, it appears that the notice of filing of the Minimum Wages case by the Labour Enforcement Officer was served upon the petitioner on 26.08.2006 as it is evident from the Process Server Report dated 12.10.2006. Such report does not indicate that the summons were sent through Registered post on the office of the petitioner as is required under Rule 29 of the Minimum Wages (Central Rules), 1957. The Rule 29 of the Rules is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"29. Appearance of parties.?(1) If an application under sub-section (2) of Section 20 or Section 21 is entertained, the Authority shall serve upon the employer by registered post a notice in Form IX to appear before him on a specified date with all relevant documents and witnesses, if any, and shall inform the applicant of the date as specified.
(2) If the employer or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may hear and determine the application ex-parte.
(3) If the applicant or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may dismiss the application.
(4) An order passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown by the defaulting party within one month of the date of the said order, and the application shall then be reheard after service of notice on the opposite party of the date fixed for rehearing, in the manner specified in sub-rule (1)."
(5) The Award mentions therein that after service of summons a written statement was filed by the employer objecting to the delay in filing the Minimum Wages case and also taking other objections that no such employees as were mentioned in the notice having ever been worked in the office of the petitioner. These objections were allegedly taken on 31.08.2006.
(6) The petitioner has denied that they ever filed such objections or that they had issued any authority letter in favour of any authorized representative or Advocate to appear on their behalf.
(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kheragarh, Agra Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV) and another reported in [(2012) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2107], wherein this Court observed that the Tribunal should not have proceeded Ex-parte by placing reliance upon the statement of the Workman and set aside the order of termination when there was no authorized representative of the employer who appeared in the Adjudication. It has been observed by this Court that an Advocate can be permitted to appear in an Adjudicatory forum only on the basis of the conditions laid down under Sub-Section 2 of Section 6-I of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 6-I of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Rule 40 of the Rules of 1957 clearly provided that an authorized representative can represent a party before the Adjudicatory Forum provided conditions laid down in Sub-Section 2 thereof are coupled with. The conditions mentioned in Sub-Section 2 relate to issuance of Authority Letter in favour of the Advocate by the Client. It was a specific case of the writ petitioners therein that they had not received any notice, therefore there was no question of any authorized representative appearing on their behalf before the Labour Court.
(8) From perusal of the order-sheet of the Minimum Wages case it appears that after the objections were filed by the petitioner or some person not authorized by the employers, a date was fixed for Condonation of Delay and delay was also condoned on 15.02.2008 by the opposite party no.2 and the matter proceeded thereafter on several dates and ultimately the order was reserved on 13.10.2010 and the Award was delivered on 25.10.2010.
(9) Since the petitioner has disputed the service of summons in accordance with the Rules framed for the same namely Rule 29, and has also disputed any Authority Letter being ever issued in respect of any person to appear as authorized representative before the opposite party no.2, the impugned Award as well as the order passed rejecting Recall Application are set aside.
(10) It shall be open for the aggrieved labourers to approach the opposite party no.2 afresh, in case, they continued to be employees of the writ petitioners and are not being paid their minimum wages as prescribed.
(11) Accordingly, this Writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 PAL