IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5933 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 03, 2010. Gram Panchayat of village Panihari District Sirsa through its Sarpanch Sona Ram ...... Petitioner. Versus. State of Haryana, Department of Labour, Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ashok Singla and Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by respondent No. 2/Labour Inspector, Sirsa-cum-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, vide which the claim of respondent No. 3 was allowed ex-parte. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not served in MW-47 of 2005, wherein the respondent/Workman had filed an application under the Minimum Wages Act claiming the total wages of Rs. 24,800/-. He contends that there was no service effected upon the petitioner/Gram Panchayat and no report with regard to the registered notices duly issued to the petitioner. His further contention is that report given in MW-46 of 2005 had been taken into consideration erroneously by the Labour Court for holding that the petitioner/Gram Panchayat had failed to appear before the Labour Court despite registered notices being issued to the petitioner. He on this basis contends that the Order dated 04.05.2006 and the Order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Authority under the C.W.P. No. 5933 of 2009. -2- Minimum Wages Act deserve to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent submits that two claims were preferred by respondent No. 3 for different periods under the Minimum Wages Act. Both the cases were taken up for consideration by the Labour Court, i.e., MW-46 of 2005 and MW-47 of 2005 together. In both the cases, the notices were issued to the petitioner/Gram Panchayat through registered post. A joint report was submitted before the Labour Court that the registered notices have been sent to the petitioner/Gram Panchayat and the report was that they have been served upon the petitioner/Gram Panchayat. The Labour Court, therefore, had rightly proceeded against the petitioner/Gram Panchayat ex-parte. His further contention is that in the other Award, i.e., MW-46 of 2005, the petitioner/Gram Panchayat had accepted the said notice and the due payment had been made to him. He on this basis contends that the Order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for respondent No. 3 has placed on record the certified copy of the report of postal authorities with regard to service of the registered notice in MW-46 of 2005, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the Authroity under the Minimum Wages Act as well as the case in hand. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is fully justified. There is no report with regard to the issuance of the registered notice to the petitioner/Gram Panchayat in MW-47 of 2005. The certified copy, which has been placed on record, showing the report of delivery of the registered notice only refers to MW-46 of 2005. The report of the postal authorities also indicates that only one registered notice in MW-46 of 2005 was served upon C.W.P. No. 5933 of 2009. -3- the petitioner/Gram Panchayat. The contention of counsel for the respondent that it was a joint report given by the staff to the Authority in MW-46 of 2005 and MW-47 of 2005 cannot be accepted for the reason that only one registered notice was shown to be served upon the petitioner/Gram Panchayat. Even the report does not indicate that the said report in MW-46 of 2005 also contains the report of MW-47 of 2005. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. the impugned Order dated 18.12.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Sirsa, is hereby set aside. The ex-parte proceeding initiated against the petitioner/Gram Panchayat, vide Order dated 04.05.2006 is also set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Sirsa, on 20.05.2010. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 03, 2010. sjks.