INJHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, WRIT PETITION CD N0. ^€>OF 2007 <7f]^ PETITIONER: •••—" .y^-^'^ s-^s^^ Loxhmi Shankar Gupta, S/o- Shri Triveni Prasad Gupta, Aged About- 42 years, R/o-Qtr. No, I- 73, Shivajinagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C,G.), {Presently residing at Shivajinagar, L.I.G. 121 Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G,)} '^'0-) <"' VERSUS RESPONDENT (S\ $ .1 .Authority, Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Korba, Office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2. Babulal Jaisawal, S/o- Shri Bahal Prasad Jaisawal, Aged About- 33 years, R/o- New Kashinagar, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) 22T 6-- WJ?IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226- OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ss"" t ^ ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (L) No. 4667 of 2007 PETtnQNER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Laxhmi Shankar Gupte Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 194S, Korba and another Shrl Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petlUoner. Shri Ashok Kumar Shuicia, counssl for respondent No.2. WRIT PETCTION UNDERARTICLe 227 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDSA Q_B^>£_B Challenge in the present petltion is to the order dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Authortty, Under Minlmum Wages Act. by which the peUtioner has been dtrerted to pay Rs. 1,51,019 to respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petittoner submits that the order impugned dated 19.01.2007 ts an ex-parte orderagalnst which the petttioner had ffled an applicatlon for setting aslde the same on 19.02.2007 but the said appllcatlon was rejected by the authortty on 13.03.2007 by hoiding that the Authorlty has no power to review its order. He submits that though the order dated 13.03.2007 has not been challeoged by the petjtioner but the purpose of filing thls petttion woutd be served if the orcter dated 13.03.2007 Is set aslde by thls Court and the matter is remittKl back to the prescribed authority for decidlng the legality of the ex- parte proceedlngs agalnst the petitloner. 3. Contentlon of Shri Pandey, counsel for the petitioner Is that under Sub Rule-4 of Rule 29 of Minimum Wages Central Rutes, 1950 the authority has every rtght to set aside the ex-parte order ',_ m -••<&.. .°?' .'? sws?^ " -2- and therefore the authon'ty was wrong tn passtng the order dated 13.03.2007. 4. Learned counsel appearlng for respondent No.2 argued that though the order dated 13.03.2007 has not been chailenged before this Court, however, he has no objectlon If the matter ts remitted back to the prescrlbed authorlty for declding afresh the appDcation of the petltioner for setting aslde of the ex-parte award dated 19.01.2007. 5. Considering the facts and dreumstances of the case, the timited prayer of the petltioner and the concession gh/en by respondent No.Z^the order dated 13.03.2007 Is s^. aside and the matter is remitted back tothe authorlty to declde the application of the petitloner dated 19.02.2007 (Annexure P-3) on merlts after hearing all the parties giving them full opportunity to present their case includlng evidence if so requtres and to pass appropriate order In accordance wlth law. 6. The petitloner and the respondent No.2 are djrected to appear before the Court of respondent No.l on.^6B' SepterrAsr, 2011. 7. Accordingly; the petition Is disposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge