IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3934 of 2010 Bala Ram Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 28.06.2011 Heard Mr. Umesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned G.P. 7 appearing on behalf of the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 1217 dated 24.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bettiah, District-West Champaran in Minimum Wage Case No. 264 of 2004 and 265 of 2004, whereby the claim set out by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 for payment of wages has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of a differential wages amount of Rs. 1160/- and Rs. 7212/- respectively to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and also pay compensation amount of Rs. 2320/- to respondent no. 5 and Rs. 14,424/- to respondent no. 6 respectively. The total amount coming to Rs. 25,116/-. The order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner was affirmed when the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner giving rise to Appeal Case No. 4 of 2009 before the Deputy 2 Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings itself was beyond the scope and purview of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). He submits that where the employment and the payment of wages itself was under cloud and was not substantiated with documentary evidence, no order could have been passed in the proceedings. He thus submits that in absence of evidence supporting the claims, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability in question under the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the writ petitioner draws the attention of the Court towards the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner present at Annexure-5 which appropriately records the appearance of the petitioner and of filing his reply. It is submitted that the petitioner having filed his appearance before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, failed to contest the claim set out by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 under the provisions of 3 Section 20 of the Act. The order having been affirmed by the Appellate authority as recorded in its order dated 11.8.2009 in the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, no ground for interference is called for by this Court in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act as present in Annexure-5 shows that the order has been passed after recording the evidence of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and upon perusal of the documents submitted by the Labour Enforcement Officer. As the petitioner despite filing his appearance did not contest the claim, hence the evidence given by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 remained uncontroverted. It is in this background that the claim has been allowed under the impugned order. Even thereafter the petitioner was not vigilant in filing the appeal and the appeal was filed after five months from the date of the order passed by the court below. The appeal was dismissed by reason of having been filed beyond the period of limitation in terms of the amendment under the Bihar Act 5 of 1983, requiring an appeal to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date 4 of the order passed by the original court to a maximum of 30 days thereafter, after showing sufficient cause explaining the delay but not thereafter. The appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal on grounds of limitation as also after taking into consideration the circumstances under which the order was passed by the original authority. I find no sufficient grounds to interfere with the orders impugned. The application is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)