IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7061 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU PAUL, PROPRIETOR, SMITHA FABRICS, OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) THRISSUR (AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT). 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE 3RD CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. BETTY JACOB,MELETH HOUSE, ST. ANTONY'S ROAD, OLLUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.7061 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order passed by the first respondent directing that the petitioner be paid balance amount of minimum wages along with compensation. Though the petitioner contends that he has paid the amount in full, complaint is that ignoring the same, revenue recovery action is initiated. 2. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the total amount payable as per the order is Rs.17,962/- with a further provision for interest in case of default. Ext.P2 receipt produced by the petitioner shows that the total amount paid is only Rs.8981/-. If that be so, the full amount due as per Ext.P1 has not been paid. 3. Counsel now contends that the first respondent did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application and relies /2/ on the judgments reported in Town Municipal Council,Athani V. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli (AIR 1969 SC 1335 and Manganese ore(India) Ltd. V. Chandilal Saha & ors. (1991 Suppl.(2)SCC 465). 3. Though I have considered the submission, in my view this court will not be justified in upsetting Ext.P1, which was passed way back on 25th January, 2008, at this distance of time, on the ground of jurisdiction, for the reason that despite having received notice, petitioner did not appear or contested the matter before the respondent. He should have appeared before the respondent in response to the notice and raised the point of jurisdiction. This having not been done, I do not think this court will be justified in upsetting Ext.P1. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ /2/