^',|0^ L ' IN 'GH COVRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR .^'Sji^fi W.P. (€}N0. PET: Somaru Jaiswal (Village Assistant), S/o. Late Mohan Jaiswal, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Village Mahagai, PoUce Station Prem Nagar, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS ^ 1] State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Inspector, Mmimum Wages Act, .«ff -f,A 1948, Labour Sub-Division, Ambikapur, O;?- ?^^ ^* Distt-ict Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 0^(f.^ l'<i'-f^'"C 2] »J-' ^•^ ^ <^i'^ r'xj'1 u / ^^ o' 4] / 5] •—«<.^^ ^ ^ffe^p ir i^ ^^. Authority under Mmimum Wages Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Tahsildar, Prenmagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Jainath Singh, S/o. Jalu Singh, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Village Jamdih, Tahsil Aiabikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Bilas S/o. Kunwar Sai, Aged about 42 years, R,/o. Village Lachha, Police Station & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Shyamlal Singh S/o. Kusum Sai, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Lachha, Police Station & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) /7j / 8] Ahiraj S/o. Bhupsai, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Village Damaupur, Police Station Lakhanpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, • District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Shivnarayan S/o. Charan, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Village Kalipur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distriet Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Sheshmani S/o. Ramlal, Aged about 42 years, R/o. Village Kalipur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 'TTION UNDER ARTTCLE 226/W OF THE. / Q'l CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l/p ^atBHffi* XI-HC-78 g^''<ii<<K«i<<,©iflu'is,fsidiy^< fflw(TgOTww^p'"^^^20o6 311^1 Maqi (yit^q'iT) an^rwf^lRi tiW3IT^T»iro ^dTWdf^fsn^T »i<<fii'ifl-<'•iii<flT^'tecfl'<Rt't<i< ^sri^rsn^T 2/1/2007 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel| for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, G.A. for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Heard. By this petition, the petiti<|>ner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 31' Minimum Wages Act, Labour Court,' the authority under Minimum Wag rejected the application filed by the 10-2006 passed by the authority under Ambikapur in case No.28/2006 whereby es Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur, has petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 5 of the Limitation A4 for setting aside ex-parte order dated 27-2-99. Perusa! ofthe application filei C.P.C. along with application unde; members, same fact has been m Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Botti affidavit. In the circumstances, learr enquiry in order to ascertain whethei petitioner with the signatures on the in that connection. The impugned without conducting any enquiry.the same is iiable to be quashed. by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that in para-4 of the application, tljie petitioner has mentioned that before passing ex-parte order, no notice w^sreceived by the petitioner herein, even the signatures on the acknowledbement are not of him or his family entioned in the appiication fited under these applications are supported by the led authority ought to have conducted an the signatureson the acknowledgement are of the petitioner or not, in that 4onnection, concerned postman ought to have been summoned or by com^anng the undisputed signatures of the acknowtedgement or any other evidence order has been passed by the authority irefore, this order is ex-facie illegal and P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:^'-<<l<ll<t'4, 8iT(1«'16,ftcliyy *11*1MI Sf><1|c^ W[ 200 3n^?r'ra^ (ijcfl^ci^sr) 3D^T9RT^IR; <rar a'n^TsbHiqi Bawe B^nwflfBtfsn^r aftk 1 nererore, at tne aamission the impugned order is quashed ai application filed by the petitioner Section 5 of the Limitation Act fact whether, in fact, notice issui petitioner or not and pass further In view of this order, M.(W &11548/2006 stanci disposed of. Parties are entitled for certifi ^tage Itsfelf, the wrlt petitioii is disposed of, |d the authority is directed to decide the lunder Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with ^r conducting necessary enquiry into the orBer )P. No.4947/2006, I.A. Nos.11547/2006, ^d copy of this order. tii<ilci41-i *fiiciT¥teEA<Ri't<ii<, ^?3TR|IT3n^T d on the petitioner was served on the A_ Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice 54^ P.T.O.