THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.9679 of 2000 Date: 22.07.2010 Between: Hotel Manorama … Petitioner AND The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.9679 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner-institution is aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2000 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru in Case No. MW 3/99 directing the petitioner to deposit the difference of minimum wages of Rs.33,428/- along with one time compensation of Rs.33,428/- as a condition precedent to take up the petitioner’s restoration petition. Case No. MW 3/99 was taken on file by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District, being the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at the behest of the Assistant Labour Officer, Circle-VI, Vijayawada, Krishna District on the complaint made by the petitioner’s workmen with regard to the difference of minimum wages. The petitioner put in its appearance before the Authority on 15.06.1999 but failed to appear on the next date of hearing, 20.07.1999. The petitioner was accordingly set ex parte on that date and an order was passed directing it to deposit the amount of Rs.33,428/- towards the difference of wages along with five times the said amount towards compensation. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said ex parte order. Thereupon, the Authority passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2000 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.66,856/- being the difference of wages along with one time compensation as a condition precedent for entertaining its application to set aside the ex parte order. Hence, this writ petition. In his counter, the Assistant Labour Officer, VI- Circle, Vijayawada sought to support the order passed by the Authority stating that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that it has a strong case on merits and that it ought not to be penalized at this stage by directing payment of compensation even before the matter is heard by the Authority. I find substance in this contention. As the Authority is yet to take up the matter and consider the same on its merits, it is premature to direct the petitioner to pay compensation at this stage as a condition precedent for entertaining its restoration petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the difference of wages of Rs.33,428/- before the Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the Authority, the first respondent herein, is directed to consider and dispose of Case No. MW 3/99 on its merits. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 22.07.2010 Isn