IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11270 of 2003 Bishwanath Prasad Gupta @ Bishwanath Prasad, son of Late Badri Narayan Sah, Proprietor M/s Vishal Talkies, Saraiyaganj, Police Station Town Thana, District Muzaffarpur......Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Under the Minimum Wages Act, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 3. Assistant Labour Commissioner - cum-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 4. Ganesh Prasad Sah @ Ganesh Kumar, son of Late Ram Bilash Sah, Resident of Motijhil, Police Station Town Thana, District Muzaffarpur 5. Rajendra Mahto, son of Late Jai Kishun Mahto, Pankaj Market Saraiyaganj, District Muzaffarpur 6. Shri Mahabir Mistri, son of late Basudeo Prasad, Resident of Village & Post Office Mahua, District Vaishali 7. Shri Raja Ram Trivedi, son of Shri Sitaram Trivedi, Sukul Road, Muzaffarpur 8. Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, son of Doman Singh, Kalambagh Road Sanichra Asthan, Muzaffarpur 9. Smt. Meena Devi, Widow of Late Umashver Prasad, Saraiganj, Muzaffarpur 10. Shri Ajay Kumar, son of Shri Ramashish Ram, Purani Gudri, Muzaffarpur.......Respondents ------ For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate *** 4 02.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. From Annexure-6, it appears that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed earlier also by the appellate authority, under the Minimum Wages Act, by order dated 08.08.2001, - 2 - exactly in four lines which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and his writ petition, namely, CWJC No. 5169 of 2002 was allowed by order dated 24.01.2003 and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority with a direction to re-hear the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. Thereafter by the impugned order (Annexure-1), the appeal of the petitioner has again been dismissed by order dated 26.08.2003 which was specifically preferred against respondent no.4. Notice was issued in this case to respondent no.4 earlier which was validly served, but no one has appeared on his behalf. After going through the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 (Annexure-1), this Court finds submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as correct that except for noticing the entire history of the case, the appellate authority has not discussed any of grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and has simply dismissed the appeal by one line order. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the appeal, the appellate - 3 - authority granted adjournment after adjournment and when learned counsel for the appellant was not ready to argue the case on merits before the appellate authority, the prayer for adjournment was refused and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. It may be that learned counsel for the petitioner was adopting delaying tactics before the appellate authority, but that was not sufficient for the appellate authority to dismiss the appeal without considering the materials on record and grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal, specially in view of the orders of this Court that it was required to pass a speaking order afresh in the appeal. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 as contained in Annexure- 1 is quashed and the matter is again remitted back to the concerned appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner to appear and participate in the hearing. In case submissions are advanced on behalf of the appellant- petitioner and materials are produced, the appellate authority shall consider and discuss - 4 - them and pass a speaking order dealing with the same. However, in case there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant, the appellate authority shall still consider the materials available on record and grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal and any other pleadings filed on his behalf and shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the appellate authority within one month from today. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)