HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15036 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed against the order dated 16.05.2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur, and the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). The Assistant Labour Officer, Ponnur, inspected the establishment of the petitioner on 22.01.1996 at 10.45 A.M. He found the petitioner and two other employees working thereat. On enquiry, he learnt that Sri Omkar Prasad Rao was working ever since 01.01.1990 on a monthly salary of Rs.450/-, and Sri V.S.R.Krishna Rao was working as a pump attendant since four months at Rs.450/- P.M. The Assistant Labour Officer also recorded that two other workers i.e. Sri G.Mallikarjunarao, attendant and Sri G.Sureshbabu, clerk, had left the petitioner’s services two months ago. The Assistant Labour Officer contended that the petitioner had failed to pay minimum wages, as per G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 10.03.1993, and that an amount of Rs.14,188/- was payable by him towards minimum wages. He filed an application before the Authority under the Act to direct the petitioner herein to pay the differential minimum wages of Rs.14,188/-, and for compensation of ten times the said amount. The Authority under the Act noted that the Assistant Labour Officer was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner herein, and later the petitioner had filed an affidavit said to have been given by Sri G.Sureshbabu. The Authority observed that, since Sri G.Sureshbabu was not examined as a witness before it, the contents of the alleged affidavit could not be taken into consideration. While agreeing with the contention of the Assistant Labour Officer that the petitioner herein had denied minimum wages to his workmen, the Authority directed payment of five times compensation of Rs.70,940/-, in all totalling to Rs.85,128/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The only contention urged before this Court by Sri A.Sreedhar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Learned Counsel would submit, that though the petitioner had filed a counter affidavit, the Authority had failed to take into consideration the said counter affidavit while passing the order under challenge. A perusal of the order dated 16.05.2000 would show that the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the Assistant Labour Officer; the affidavit of Sri G.Sureshbabu produced by him was also noted by the Authority; and it was only, thereafter, that the order dated 16.05.2000 came to be passed. The counter affidavit, said to have been filed by the petitioner, is dated 16.05.2000. Sri A.Sreedhar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the counter affidavit was filed only after the order was passed, and failure to file the counter affidavit earlier was on account of the illness of the petitioner’s counsel. Failure on the part of the counsel to file the counter affidavit, or for the petitioner to adduce evidence before the authorities, would not result in violation of principles of natural justice since such failure is occasioned by the petitioner himself and is not on account of the Authority having denied them a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Having chosen not to adduce any evidence in their defence, or to file a counter affidavit before the order was passed, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that they were denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Authority under the Act, in its order dated 16.05.2000, notes that the petitioner herein had not responded to the notice issued by the Assistant Labour Officer earlier; and even at the stage of arguments, both the petitioner and his counsel were continuously absent. The petitioner, having failed to avail the numerous opportunities given to them by the Authority under the Act, cannot now turn around and contend that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The order under challenge does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.07.2010 usd