THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.897, 1070 and 1077 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, respondent No.3 herein, under Section 15-A of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short ‘the Act’). They pleaded that their members are engaged on daily wage basis for quite a long time and that they are entitled to be paid wages on par with Class-IV employees engaged by the A.P. Agricultural University. Respondent No.3 passed separate orders, dated 06.05.1991. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached this Court by filing writ petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of leaving it open to them to prefer appeals before the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District under Section 17 of the Act. Accordingly C.M.A.Nos.112, 113 and 114 of 1997 were filed before the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeals through separate orders, dated 24.07.1999, and has set aside the orders passed by respondent No.3. The petitioners filed I.A.Nos.2625, 2626 and 2627 of 2001 with a prayer to set aside the orders, dated 24.07.1999. The I.As. were dismissed on 06.08.2002. Hence, these writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the lower appellate Court by filing appeals against the orders passed by respondent No.3 granting relief under Section 15 of the Act. The appeals were allowed through orders, dated 24.07.1999. A perusal of the orders discloses that arguments of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the appellants therein alone were heard and nothing was stated as to the nature of the representations on the part of the petitioners herein, the only contesting parties. It was observed that the petitioners were not set ex parte. In case there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, the Court ought to have set them ex parte. The possibility in the ordinary course to decide the matters on merits would have been there, only when there is a representation for both the parties. The petitioners assert that they did not receive any notices in the appeals at all, and soon after they came to know about the orders, dated 24.07.1999, they have filed the applications. While dealing with the applications to set aside the orders, dated 24.07.1999, the lower appellate Court took into account, two important factors, namely that there is nothing on record to disclose that the petitioners were set ex parte, and that the orders in the appeals were passed on merits. It is difficult to reconcile these two conflicting situations. In a way, they should have been read in favour of the petitioners, than treating them as grounds to reject their request to set aside the orders, dated 24.07.1999. Another observation made by the lower appellate Court was that the applications were not accompanied by the petitions to condone delay. The petitioners asserted that they were not served with any notices. Therefore, the question of filing applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not arise, particularly when the applications are filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge. At any rate, there was not much delay in presentation of the applications. Lastly, the lower appellate Court observed that the person, who represented the petitioners, was not authorized. That was totally untenable, for the reason that the proceedings were initiated before respondent No.3 by that very person. Therefore, it cannot be said that he needs special authorization when it came to the question of representing the petitioners in the appeals. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders, dated 06.08.2002, passed I.A.Nos.2625, 2626 and 2627 of 2001 are set aside. Consequently, the orders, dated 24.07.1999, passed in C.M.A.Nos.112, 113 and 114 of 1999 are also set aside. The lower appellate Court shall hear and dispose of the appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notices to the parties concerned. To avoid further delay, the parties shall arrange to enter appearance. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 09.12.2010. kdl