THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16881 OF 2000 14TH OCTOBER, 2011 Between: The Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, RWS Division, Sadasivpet, Medak District, Rep. by its Executive Engineer, Sri Laxma Reddy. … Petitioners And The Authority Appointed under Sec.15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, Medak District and another. …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16881 OF 2000 O R D E R The Panchayat Raj Department of the State filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.2 of 1996 in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995. By the said order, the Authority held that sufficient grounds were not made out for setting aside the final order dated 17.01.1996 passed by it in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995. This Court granted interim suspension of the impugned order dated 22.12.1999 passed in I.A.No.2 of 1996 in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995 as well as the ex parte order dated 17.01.1996 made in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995. Despite the matter being adjourned time and again to enable the learned counsel for the second respondent to appear and argue the matter, she remained oblivious. This Court therefore proceeds to decide the matter on merits. P.W.Case No.1 of 1995 was filed by the second respondent herein seeking payment of wages from the petitioner Department from 01.12.1994 to 30.04.1995 at the rate of Rs.60/- per day. The petitioner Department entered its appearance and also filed a counter. According to it, the case was posted on 22.01.1996 for recording of evidence and at that stage, the second respondent filed an application for advancement of the case. Acting upon the said application, the Authority advanced the hearing of the case to 16.01.1996. The petitioner Department claims that it was not heard upon this application and only after ordering advancement, the Authority issued notice of the advancement which was received by it on 11.01.1996. The petitioner Department however remained unrepresented before the Authority on 16.01.1996. As per the impugned order dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Authority, the second respondent’s evidence was recorded by it on the said date and the final order in the case was passed on the very next day, 17.01.1996. I.A.No.2 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner Department under Rule 8 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.01.1996 in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995 and to suspend the operation of the said order in the meanwhile. The affidavit filed in support thereof indicated that the petitioner Department received the notice fixing the date of hearing on 16.01.1996 by hand-delivery on 11.01.1996. The petitioner Department however admitted that it did not appear before the Authority on the said day. The impugned order passed by the Authority reflects that the Authority concentrated upon the lapses on the part of the petitioner Department in not appearing before it on 16.01.1996 and in not seeking a clarification if it had any doubts with regard to the date of the hearing. However, there are no reasons forthcoming as to why the Authority itself acted contrary to the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937. Rule 8(2) of the said Rules specifies that if the employer or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may proceed to hear and determine the application ex parte. The proviso to Rule 8 however empowers the Authority to set aside such an ex parte order and re-hear the application on good cause being shown. In the present case, it is clear from the impugned order passed by the Authority that the petitioner Department was not heard by it at the time of passing of the final order on 17.01.1996. However, significantly, the Authority did not set the petitioner Department ex parte and proceeded to decide the case on merits as if it had heard both sides. There is also no reason as to why the Authority passed the final order in the case on very next day after recording the evidence of the second respondent workman. This undue urgency shown by the Authority in passing the order and at that, in violation of the statutory procedure, cannot be countenanced. Another aspect which needs to be taken into consideration is that the application filed by the second respondent workman in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995 was for payment of wages for the period 01.12.1994 to 30.04.1995. However, the order dated 17.01.1996 passed by the Authority covers the period 01.12.1994 to 31.12.1995 and the financial liability visited upon the petitioner Department, and consequently the exchequer, pursuant to this order amounted to Rs.1,90,080/-. In such circumstances, the Authority ought to have set aside the order passed by it behind the back of the petitioner Department and given it an opportunity of hearing before deciding the case. The order dated 22.12.1999 in I.A.No.2 of 1996 in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995 is accordingly set aside. For reasons alike, the ex parte order dated 17.01.1996 passed by the Authority in P.W.Case No.1 of 1995 is also set aside and the matter is remitted to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, for consideration afresh on merits after giving due opportunity to both parties. The Writ Petition is allowed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. PGS