1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.320/1996 M/s. Manju-shree Textiles Mills, Pali Vs. Vishnu Kumar & anr. Date of Order :: 11-01-2007 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.N.JHA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Shri Shailendra Kala for the appellant. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.4.1996 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.867/1986 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short, 'the Act') allowing the claim of the respondent for the sum of Rs.3810/- with compensation of Rs.11,430/- and cost of Rs.25/- totalling Rs.15,265/-. The order had been passed ex parte as the appellant did not enter appearance in the proceeding. The appellant filed application to set aside the order which was rejected on 4.3.1986. The appellant naturally challenged correctness of the said order too. The respondent had claim Rs.3810/- as the amount due on account of short payment of wages, besides leave salary of Rs.390/- and overtime salary for Rs.4500/-. The other two claims were rejected by the Authority. The respondent examined himself. 2 Accepting his statement the Authority found that he had been paid Rs.750/- per month as against the agreed remuneration of Rs.900/- per month, and accordingly upheld the respondent's case of short payment. Shri Shailendra Kala, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order was passed without service of notice behind its back. It was stated that the factory premises of the appellant are situate at 53-B, Sindhi Colony but notice was sent on a different address, namely, 54- C, Sindhi Colony. From the record it appears that 53-B and 54-C are situate contiguous to each other. It is to be kept in mind that the appellant is a factory and not an ordinary individual, and therefore even if it is accepted that the factory premises were situated at 53-B, we do not think the plea of the appellant of non-service of notice can be accepted. As a matter of fact, from the order dated 4.9.1986 by which the application to set aside the basic order dated 24.9.1995 was rejected, it appears that notice was sent thrice to the appellant. On first two occasions, it was returned unserved on account of absence of the proprietor of the appellant-Factory, described as “seth saheb”, who allegedly had gone to Haridwar on the first occasion and to Barmer in connection with some marriage on the second occasion. On both the 3 occasions, notice was returned unserved by one Kanhaiyalal Jain. On third attempt, notice was refused by Mangi Lal. Mangilal is none else than the proprietor of the appellant-Factory through whom the writ petition was filed in this Court which leaves no room for doubt that refusal of notice was by the proper person. Refusal of notice is always treated to be valid service, and therefore the appellant cannot contend that the order was passed without serving notice of the proceeding. Counsel then submitted that the Authority committed error in allowing compensation three times the amount found due. For a while we considered the desirability of modifying the compensation part of the order, but considering the fact that the respondent has been denied the benefit of the order of the Authority for over two decades, we do not think it would be a proper exercise of discretion to modify the compensation part of the order. Had the appellant filed appeal against the order of the Authority, which in the ordinary course he was supposed to do, in terms of sub-section (1A) of section 17 of the Act, the appeal would not have been entertained unless it had been filed along with a certificate by the Authority regarding deposit of the amount payable under the impugned order. In other words, the deposit of the amount found payable was a condition precedent, and the appeal therefore 4 would not have been entertained. Instead the appellant chose to challenge the order directly in this Court, and obtained order of stay on 14.4.1986. The respondent apparently on account of his adverse financial condition, never appeared either before the Single Bench or before the Division Bench in this appeal to contest the matter with the result the amount found due remained unpaid. We can take judicial view of decline in the value of money over the years. Had the respondent been paid the amount, or deposited the amount in terms of Section 17(1A) of the Act, it would have earned interest under the relevant rules framed by the State Government. As the respondent has been denied the benefit of payment or the interest which would have accrued on such payment/deposit in the meantime, we do not think it would be proper to modify the compensation part of the order. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. [S.N.JHA],CJ. Skant/-