The instant petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2019, passed by Prescribed Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Shahjahanpur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of order dated 8.2.2019, in Case No. 2/PWA/2013.
The said case was registered on the basis of application filed by respondents-2, 3 and 4 before respondent-1 for issuing direction to the petitioner to pay arrears of wages for the period 11.7.2006 to 10.7.2011, amounting to Rs.5,40,000/-. The petitioner was duly issued notice and he responded to the same by filing his objection/written statement. He also filed documentary evidence in support of his objection. Thereafter, the first respondent decided the claim in favour of respondents-2, 3 and 4 by order dated 8.2.2019 and held the petitioner liable to pay Rs. 5,40,000/- as arrears of wages to respondents-2, 3 and 4. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 8.2.2019 by filing appeal, which is provided under the statute and is maintainable only upon deposit of entire amount payable under the order impugned. Instead, the petitioner filed an application seeking recall of order dated 8.2.2019, alleging that the said order was an ex parte one and was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The court rejected the said application observing that the order was passed on merits after hearing the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the claim being allowed. On the other hand, he told the petitioner that the case has been rejected and believing the same, the petitioner stopped attending the court. He came to know of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority when he received registered letter dated 25.5.2019 from the Prescribed Authority. Immediately, the recall application was filed.
Indisputably, the petitioner was duly served in the proceedings. He even accepts that he engaged a lawyer and also filed written statement and documentary evidence. The order dated 8.2.2019 has been passed after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. The impugned order rejecting the recall application records that the parties were duly heard. In such circumstances, the version of the petitioner that his counsel did not inform him about progress of the case, or misinformed him about rejection of the claim of respondents-2, 3 and 4, could not constitute a good ground for recall of order dated 8.2.2019.
Consequently, this court finds no illegality in the impugned order to warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Jaideep/-