IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 286 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 18th August, 2009. B.S.Metal Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 286 to 288 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No. 286 of 2009. In this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Management seeks quashing of the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, whereby the petitioner's application to set aside an ex-parte order dated 18.6.2007 has been dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that there is no power of review vested with the Authority. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. There can indeed be no dispute that under Rule 8[3] of the Payment of Wages [Procedure] Rules, 1937, the Authority is very much empowered to set aside an ex-parte order and re-hear the application on merits, provided that a good cause is shown for non- appearance. In this view of the matter, the second reason assigned by the Authority under the Act that it does not have any power to review its own order, can not sustain. Adverting to the merits, the impugned order itself reveals that the ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the Management on 23.4.2007 and an application to set aside the same was moved on 30.4.2007, i.e., within one week. In a matter like the case in hand where the Authority does not find any lack of bona-fide on the part of the petitioner – Management, it ought to have recalled the order dated 23.4.2007 and decide the matter afresh on merits after giving one more opportunity, in the interest of justice, to the Management to produce the records. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petitions are allowed; the impugned orders dated 6.1.2009 and 18.6.2007 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Jalandhar are set aside, subject, however, to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs in each case to the respondent -workman. The Authority is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner – Management to produce the record and thereafter decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, as early as possible but not later than four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. Since both the orders have been set aside, no coercive steps shall be taken by the Authority against the petitioner – Management. Disposed of. Dasti. August 18, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE