IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9209 of 2003 SRI HASMAT RAI BURMAN Son of Late Paroomal Managing Director, Navran Das and Company, Resident of 9/2 Talbagan Lane Park Circus, Kolkata-17 (West Bengal) ----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Ministry of Labout, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Office at Mourya Lok Complex A Block, IInd Floor Roan No. 17, Patna. 3. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Bhagalpur. 4. Bhubneshwar Sharma @ Bineshwar Rishi, Son of Janglu Rishi. 5. Joginder Rishi Son of Birspat Risi. 6. Manoj Kumar Sharma @ Manoj Rishi, Son of Bishundeo Risi. All Respondent nos. 4 to 6 are resident of village- shobha gang, P.O.-Harda Bazar, P.S.- Kazanhi, District-Purnea --------------------- Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate. Mr. Bijoy Kant Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent no. 1 to 3 :- Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, Central Govt. Counsel ----------------------- 6. 13.01.2011 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. No body appears on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2003 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no.2 under the provision of Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 2 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby claim made on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 for payment of prescribed minimum wages has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a builder and had undertaken certain construction work at Purnea allotted by the State Bank of India. For completion of the construction works, the petitioner had engaged certain employees/workmen including respondent nos. 4 to 6, and, in his submission, the employees were paid more than the prescribed rate of minimum wages, and, therefore, the claim on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 for payment of prescribed rate of minimum wages was/is not justified. He further submits that though notices issued by respondent no. 2 were received by the petitioner, and on the date fixed, a short adjournment was prayed on behalf of the petitioner on certain valid ground, but that was rejected, and proceeding was concluded ex-parte behind the back of the petitioner without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing and without affording him opportunity to place his case in proper perspective before the prescribed authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has supported the impugned order, and in his submission, the construction premises 3 of the writ petitioner was inspected by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Bhagalpur, whereafter it transpires that three workmen namely, respondent nos. 4 to 6 were not paid the prescribed minimum wages. Accordingly, a claim petition under Section 20 (2) of the Act was filed by respondent no. 3 before respondent no.2 raising a grievance regarding non payment of prescribed rate of minimum wages to respondent nos. 4 to 6. Accordingly, minimum wages claim case no. 43 of 2003 was registered and summon/notice was issued to the writ petitioner, which was validly served. In the submission of learned counsel for respondents, since the petitioner did not contest the case despite having information and knowledge about the proceeding, the authority under the Act was fully justified to proceed with the matter and pass the impugned order dated 15th July, 2003 (Annexure-4) allowing the claim of minimum wages for respondent nos. 4 to 6. After hearing the parties at length and after considering the materials available on record, though this Court finds that order under challenge is appealable in terms of Bihar Amendment of Section 20 (6) of the Act, but the present writ petition was filed as far back as on 1.9.2003 and little less than eight years have passed since then, and matter remained pending before this 4 Court, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority at this stage. From the plain reading of the impugned order (Annexure-4), it is apparent that petitioner was not given full opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, and in fact respondent no. 2 has himself recorded that the matter proceeded ex-parte. Interest of justice demands that the petitioner must be given an opportunity of placing his case before the authority concern. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 15th July, 2003 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent no. 2 for a fresh decision in accordance with law. However, this order is subject to deposit of Rs. 2,648/- by the petitioner before respondent no. 2 within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner is also directed to appear before respondent no. 2, with a certified copy of this order, within the aforesaid period of six weeks. If the petitioner appears before respondent no. 2 and deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,648/- within the prescribed period of six weeks from today, the respondent no. 2 shall issue notice to the private respondent nos. 4 to 6 and other concerned authorities and shall fix a date for 5 hearing the matter afresh on merit. Pursuant to the notice, if respondent nos. 4 to 6 appear before respondent no. 2, then they shall be paid proportionately from the amount of Rs. 2,648/- deposited by the petitioner and they shall be permitted to place their claim before him. Respondent no. 2 shall decide all the issues raised by the petitioner as also by the respondents with respect to payment of minimum wages by a reasoned order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of six months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,648/-within the prescribed period of six weeks from today, then it would be construed that present writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has been finally rejected by this Court. It is also made clear that Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall not be obliged to return any amount paid to them from the amount of Rs. 2,648/- deposited by the petitioner With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application stands disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)