^ ^-^ IN THE HIGH COURT 0.,KKW'^:~^^^^^ ^ ^XJUA-PUR !SSL-SELIT^OJNJSO-*.S&6-3-OF»-»222t PETITIONER \ OY..<'&,!1>7 ^>^.^ A}:&^ ^- y^.^. ...•'< y-''"^' -^' $ Siddharth Singh^ Son of Sri Naren- dra Narayan Singh^ aged aboufc 40 years^ Occupation s Business^ resident of Kedarpur^ Ambikapur^ District s Surguja ( C6G 5 p''' >°'^ ^y VERSUS' RESPONDENI?: ""^"o l?^s State of Chhafctisgarh through fche Labour Inspector^ Minimum Wages Acfc^ Ambikapur^1 ©istrict: Surguja ( c G 5. ^v^^ ^ '^ T^' , r- ^, O rt V.RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLS 227 OF TIffi CONSTITUTION OF IND'iIA XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T ^i<=h3TI^T 5b^i<=b^ff?cT 5b^l<=b 3T5ET -qiqKrt^, ^Tn^jl<o, [^<r11^< 311^1 M5<Cft —..^.f..M^JD>T. ^tl^MI sh^lch -t---^---^-- ^ 200 f^^;' 3TI^T?^TTW^f?cT ShriV,K, Paadev, coun Shri Yashwaat Smgh T: This matt.er is bemg dis the parties at fhe edmissiDn c- The petitiouer has q correctuess of orcler dated 1 Mio.miuHi Wagc^ Act, Laboui Act/ 2004 med by tlie 6.7.2004 passed m origmal c Brief facte leadio-g t^ reopondent hereiii filed a c6 coiiiplain.ce of provisions o-i matter was penclmg before couusel for the petitioner he| therefore, fhe order for ex-| 6.7,2004 the inatter was de<j fact, on 9.7.2004 an applic^ was llled on behaltk of tiie counsel for the petitk)uer wa^ could riot appear before the Jiidge vide ijo.piigued order that the groiiud takeu by CQI^ m some ofb.er court is a fal^ vigilaiit about the heaTmg, <=hi^(<n4l'i *4i*JiciT^*tel:^t'<Ri^<-i< ^3:rf^T3:nc^T jsel for the petitioner, jiaknr, Govt. Advocate for thc State. Iposed ofwith the conseiit of counsel for ttage itself. juestioued tiie legality, propriety aiid ,2.2005 passed by the Authority iincler Court, Ainbikapur tn. Case No,27/?vI.W. pettltioner hercm agaiast tlie order dated ^se No. 148/2003 M.W. Act. filiug of this writ petition ai-e tliat niplauit agaiiist the petitioner for non- thc Miruinuni Wages Act, Wheu the (lie leaiierd Labour CourL on 3/7/2004 |:'em could not appear beforc the Court, ^arte proceedings was passed axid 011 |ided ex-part.e. Ou coiiiiiig to kiiow this ition tiuder Ordcr 9 Rzilc 1-3 of the CPC petitioiier herem on tlie ground tliat busy m some other court, thercforc, he 1-abour Court, However, leaiiied Lafoour rejected tlie application and obser^^ed ^nsel for the. pctitioncr tliat hc was biisy se excuse aiid he ought to have rematii XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^TW3TT^T ^^ffi^f^T tG^ff (^) 3^ ^l^ld^, ^Tfi^^Ko, [GI<-II<-I^< 3TT^5T^ra^" ^l*<crll sh^ich ^^••^^^^'"•'y^* 200 Ic|^<4 3TI^T?^ITW^f?cT There i^ 110 inateiial b^ leaniecl Laboiu' Judge reach^ pctitioncr raised a. faJsc excu] the exparte order was fuedj period of three days from tj ought to have coiisidered t^ Labour Jiidge wao of tlie op] iiegligent theu in snch cascs| tfae petitioner, but passmg rights of fhe petitioner. Ho^| petitioner has not. beeu allo^ iiiipugned order caiiiiot be c^ circunistaiices, it i% a lit ca| set aside, In the' result, the mipugned order is hex'eby | R6.100/- by the petitioiieil dirc.cted to appc.ar beforc th^ aiid tiie Labour Court shoul^ allow the petitioner t.o contcs| In view of above No.6289/05 staiid disposed C^rti&cd copy as pcr cbi^Ic-i41^ ^i^KnT^te^iRi^K ^3:rf^q'3TT^T tfore the MbQur court 011 record bv 'whioh kl to the conclusioii that couusel for tlie |sc, whcu the appucatiou for setting asidc so promptty on 9.7.2004 ie, witlim a |he date/of oider leamed Labour Judge tiat application and at tlie Biost if fhe tnion that couiisel for the petitioiier was tlic cozirt was entitlcd to tmposc cost on ejxpaile order for such a lapse aifects tlie |Tever, the order has been passed aiid th.e |ved to contest the mat-ter, therefore, tlie |onsiderecl to be just and fair aiid tii t.he ^c whcre thc iinpiigued order should bc p^titiou of the petitioner is ailowed ajid ^uashed subject to paym.ent of cost of to tlie respondeut, The petitioner is Labour Court csu 12t11 Scptenibcr^ 2005 pl take up tlie matter from tliat stage aiid I: the applicatiou, 03|der, M.(W.)P. No. 2779/05 aiid I.A. bf, ntilcs, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^ft^^fe^) ^