CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8201 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 13, 2010 Prem Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Sirsa and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B. S. Mittal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by authority under the Minimum Wages Act, whereby the petitioner has been held liable to pay a sum of ` 21,000/-. The impugned order is an exparte order and, thus, the petitioner has challenged the same, on the grounds that it is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed a false and frivolous application under Minimum Wages Act, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8201 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: seeking arrears of wages on the ground that they were paid less wages than prescribed. The claim is that the respondents had worked for a period from 14.2004 to 1.8.2004, when they were paid less than the minimum wages but had filed this application on 7.2.2008 i.e. nearly after four years. The respondents had set up a claim that they were employed as agriculture labour but were paid wages less than the prescribed wages under the Minimum Wages Act. Though the petitioner had appeared and filed reply, but none appeared on his behalf on 22.7.2009 and so he was proceeded ex- parte. That was the day fixed for recording evidence of the respondent, which was so recorded ex-parte. On the basis of an ex- parte evidence, the authority had held that the respondents had worked under the petitioner and accordingly allowed the claim for Rs.21,000/-. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the said order by filing the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served. A counsel appeared on their behalf on 26.5.2010 and was granted time to file reply. Counsel for the respondents also made a statement before this Court that he would not press the execution application, which was pending for 28.5.2010. On 30.6.2010, another request was made for adjournment to file reply. The case was adjourned to 13.8.2010. Today, the counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 pleads no instructions and says that the respondents have not contacted him. It is, thus, clear that the respondents are not interested in defending the writ petition. No reply is filed. There is no defence projected in response. The averments made in the petition are, thus, to be taken as true for the purpose of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8201 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: passing this order. It is averred in the petition that the matter had earlier been taken up by the Gram Panchayat of the Village and it was found that claim of the respondents was found totally false. Averment further is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 never remained labourers with the petitioner. The copy of the writing dated 19.2.2004 by the Gram Panchayat is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. These averments have not been denied or refuted in any manner. These are, thus, taken to be true and are required to be accepted as such. The claim of the respondents, as allowed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act can not, therefore, be sustained and the same is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.8.2009 is set-aside. August 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE