IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12003 of 2008 C.K.Construction, represented by Surendra Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Late Ajab Lal Chaudhary, R/o At PO: Bhadaya PS- Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur 848101 …………. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary of the Ministryof Labour, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 2. Regional Labour Commissioner, Regional Labour Office, Maurya Lok, Patna 3. Labour Enforcement Officer, Camp Office, Station Road, Motihari ……………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Ravi Shankar Ganguli, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, AC to AAG 7 For Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG of India ----------- 5. 28.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the five orders all dated 9.4.1997 (Annexure-1 series) passed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in Case Nos. 118/94, 121/94, 6/95, 167/95 and 5/95 by which amounts of Rs. 2915/-, 4125/-, 37950/-, 2700/- and 5775/- were respectively assessed against him. The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders have been passed without any notice to him or giving him an opportunity of hearing in the matter as required not only by the provisions of the Act and the Rules but also the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that notices of the cases were sent to the petitioner by registered post and it is only upon failure of the petitioner to appear and answer that the ex parte orders have been passed. However, nothing has been brought on the record in the counter affidavit to - 2 - show that the notices were actually served upon the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall appear before the authority concerned along with his show cause within a period of six weeks from today and the authority concerned shall consider the contention of the petitioner and if from the records it is found that notices have not been served upon the petitioner, then the impugned ex parte orders shall be withdrawn and fresh orders shall be passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in all the five cases aforementioned. Until such findings are recorded and orders passed, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)