IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.251 of 2010 1. M/S BHUPENDRA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., AT & P.O. CHITRA, DISTT-DEPGHAR, JHARKHAND, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PARIMAL KUMAR SINGH, @ BHUPENDRA SINGH. VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL LABOUR OFFICE MAURYA LOK COMPLEX,PATNA. WITH CWJC No.715 of 2010 1. M/S BHUPENDRA ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. AT + P.O. CHITRA, DISTT.- DEOGHAR (JHARKHAND) THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY BHUPENDRA SINGH @ PARIMAL KUMAR SINGH VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER PATNA, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, PATNA 2. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, PATNA WITH CWJC No.1280 of 2010 1. M/S BHUPENDRA ENGIEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AT AND P.O. CHITRA, DISTT.- DEOGHAR, JHARKHAND, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY PARIMAL KUMAR SINGH @ BHUPENDRA SINGH. VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI . 2. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL LABOUR OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, PATNA . ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar. Mr. Ajit Kumar. For the Union of Inda : Mr. Bhakteshwar Jha. Mr. Sunil Kumar. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh. ------------ 03 12.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Central Government counsels. These three writ applications are directed against the orders passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Patna in different minimum wages claim cases. These cases were - 2 - initiated on application not of the workers but of the Labour Enforcement Officer, Pakur at Patna. Petitioners’ unit is situated in the State of Jharkhand at Deoghar. The orders passed in all the three cases are ex parte order with maximum permissible penalty noticing it to be ex parte. Having come to know of the ex parte orders, petitioners applied for recall and rehearing the matter. In the meantime, in a similar application where similarly maximum penalty was imposed on an application for review, the same has been reduced to penalty equal to the default. These orders were not perused by the concerned officer. Petitioners have stated in his application that he was sick and hospitalized in Ranchi and therefore he could not attend and participated in the proceeding. In my view, admittedly, the order being ex parte, and there being an application for recall thereof, the authorities should have entertained the matter and heard the matter afresh, as that would be in the larger interest of justice, heavens would not have fallen by recalling the order and hearing the parties. Thus, I set aside the orders as passed by the respondent-2, Regional Labour Commissioner, in Minimum Wage Case Nos.126, 127 & 14 of 2007 respectively. The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent no.2 with a copy of this order and on his so appearing respondent no.2 would fix the date in presence of the petitioners on which date the petitioners should appear and then after hearing the petitioners - 3 - and taking into consideration relevant facts the respondent no.2 would pass appropriate orders in that regards afresh. Petitioners would appear before the respondent no.2 within three weeks from today with a copy of this order. The writ applications are disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)