1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1718 of 2008 (Mohan Fulchan Jain Vs. The Regional Labour Commr. (Central), Nagpur) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Shukla, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for respondent. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 5 th December, 2008 By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, on 21st of June, 2006, as also the order passed by the authority on 28th/31st March, 2008, refusing to review the earlier order dated 21/6/2006. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an ex parte order was passed against the petitioner on 21/6/2006, though a notice/summons of the proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner were not served on the petitioner. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Regional Labour Commissioner had not considered the inspection letter which showed that only 13 2 people were employed by the petitioner and hence the order dated 21/6/2001 is liable to be set aside. Shri Parihar, the learned counsel for the respondent, denied the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner about the non- receipt of the summons in the proceedings initiated on an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had duly received the summons which were issued to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D. and the acknowledgments showing the receipt of the summons are also a part of the record. The learned counsel for the respondent has also produced the copies of the acknowledgment showing the receipt of summons by the petitioner, along with the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the review application was rightly rejected as it was filed after a period of more than 1½ years after the passing of the impugned order dated 21/6/2006. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the 3 evidence adduced before the Regional Labour Commissioner by the Labour Enforcement Officer, shows that 19 employees were employed by the petitioner at the relevant time. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the impugned orders dated 21/6/2006 and 31/3/2008. I have also perused the documents annexed to the petition as well as the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the sole respondent. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the Regional Commissioner, Nagpur, did not commit any error in directing the petitioner to deposit the amounts stated in the impugned order, within a period of 30 days. The Regional Labour Commissioner had considered the Inspection Report as well as the other documents on record to hold that 19 employees were engaged by the petitioner at the relevant time. The Regional Labour Commissioner has also categorically observed that the summons were duly served on the petitioner by Registered Post on a number of occasions, but despite receiving the summons, 4 the petitioner had not appeared before the authority. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Regional Labour Commissioner and also with the action of the authority in proceeding ex parte against the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP