IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5360 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.09.2010 Shayam Chaudhary and others .... Petitioners Versus Shri Ram Rice Mill ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : None for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the respondent ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) In the present petition order impugned is dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act. However, present petition is filed on 9.9.2009 after almost two years from the date of impugned order. Latches have not been explained in the petition. Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of other 32 petitioners moved an application before the prescribed authority for recovery of payment of wages contending therein that all the petitioners have worked for the OP from 8.10.2003 to 12.11.2003 for loading and unloading and despite of working no payment has been made. It has further been asserted, in the application, that all the petitioners were working 24 hours. Learned prescribed authority after perusing entire evidence on record has held that petitioner No. 1 has taken the contract for loading and unloading and he has hired the other petitioners. It has further been observed by the prescribed authority that petitioner No. 1 has received entire payment as it is proved C.R. No. 5360 of 2009 2 from Ex. R-1 to R-5. It has further been observed by the prescribed authority that other 32 petitioners except petitioner No. 1 have not placed any evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to point out any evidence or material to prove that petitioners have worked for respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that other petitioners were hired by petitioner No. 1, however, petitioner No. 1 has not paid any payment to other petitioners. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, present petition is barred by latches also. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 28.09.2010 JUDGE reena