AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the ex parte order dated 22.09.2014 passed by respondent No.1-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Circle-III, Faridabad, in Case No.03 of 2012, whereby the claim raised by respondent No.2 was allowed against the petitioner, as also the subsequent order dated 15.12.2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte proceedings and order was dismissed.
As per the pleaded facts, respondent No.2-Labour Inspector visited the establishment of the petitioner on 07.06.2012 along with Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Steno-typist, for disbursement of wages to the workers, whereafter a claim was raised before respondent No.1 alleging non-payment of minimum wages and overtime wages to the workers. The claim was quantified at Rs.2,11,150/-. It is pleaded that the petitioner was never served with any notice of the claim and that the alleged appearance of Sh. R.K. Kaushik on behalf of the petitioner before respondent No.1 on 30.07.2012 was without any authority, as he was neither an employee of the petitioner nor authorised by it to represent the company. The petitioner was thereafter proceeded against ex parte and the claim was allowed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.09.2014, directing the petitioner to pay the claimed amount along with penalty. It is further pleaded that, after the said order, respondent No.1 issued intimation dated 10.10.2014 to the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 14.11.2014 disputing the claim and asserting that the persons referred to by respondent No.2 were not its employees, besides relying upon its wages register. According to the petitioner, no further communication was received thereafter and it remained under the bona fide impression that the matter stood resolved. The petitioner claims that it came to know about the subsisting ex parte order only upon receipt of notice in execution proceedings on 11.02.2017, whereafter it moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and order dated 22.09.2014 along with an application for condonation of delay. The said applications were opposed by respondent No.2 and were ultimately dismissed by respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, holding, inter alia, that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and the order much prior to the year 2017 and that the application filed on 21.07.2017 was hopelessly belated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings before respondent No.1 stand vitiated for want of service of notice. It is contended that the petitioner was never served with the claim petition and, therefore, had no occasion to contest the claim. Learned counsel further submits that the appearance attributed to Sh. R.K. Kaushik on 30.07.2012 cannot be treated as an appearance on behalf of the petitioner, as the petitioner had never authorised him to represent the company. It is submitted that there was no authority letter executed by the petitioner in his favour and that he was neither an employee nor otherwise connected with the petitioner-company.
It is next submitted that the ex parte order dated 22.09.2014 was passed without adequate evidence. According to learned counsel, none of the concerned workmen was examined before the Authority and no proper record was produced to establish non-payment of minimum wages or overtime wages. The Authority, it is contended, mechanically accepted the claim of respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that, upon receipt of the communication dated 10.10.2014, the petitioner submitted its reply dated 14.11.2014, disputing the claim and asserting that the persons named by respondent No.2 were not its employees. It is contended that the petitioner thereafter received no further communication and remained under the bona fide impression that the matter had been resolved. According to learned counsel, the petitioner came to know of the subsisting order only upon receipt of notice from the executing court in February, 2017 and thereafter approached respondent No.1 without any undue delay. It is accordingly submitted that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order deserved to be condoned and that the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to contest the claim on merits.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the relevant material on record.
The principal grievance of the petitioner is founded upon alleged non-service of notice and the consequent violation of principles of natural justice. The said contention, however, has to be examined in the light of the record of the proceedings as well as the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. The record of the proceedings specifically records that Sh. R.K. Kaushik appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 30.07.2012 with a letter of authority and sought time for filing the written statement. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 21.08.2012. On the said date, neither the petitioner nor its representative appeared and the petitioner was consequently proceeded against ex parte.
The petitioner has subsequently disputed the authority of Sh. R.K. Kaushik. However, this is essentially a factual assertion made subsequently. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any objection raised before the Authority regarding the alleged unauthorised appearance.
More importantly, even if the disputed appearance of Sh. R.K. Kaushik is kept aside, the subsequent conduct of the petitioner independently demonstrates that it had knowledge of the adverse order much before the year 2017. The final order was passed on 22.09.2014 and the Authority thereafter issued communication dated 10.10.2014 informing the petitioner about the order and directing it to make payment of the awarded amount. While deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, respondent No.1 specifically recorded that the said communication was duly received by an employee of the petitioner-company under its stamp. Thereafter, the petitioner itself submitted a communication dated 14.11.2014 disputing the claim and asserting that the persons referred to by respondent No.2 were not its employees. Thus, irrespective of the controversy regarding the initial service or appearance, the petitioner's own conduct establishes that it was aware of the claim and the adverse order by November, 2014.
The plea that the petitioner first came to know of the order upon receipt of notice from the executing court in February, 2017 is, therefore, difficult to accept. A party which had received intimation of an adverse order and thereafter itself responded by disputing the claim cannot, after nearly three years, contend that it had no knowledge of the order. The further explanation that the petitioner believed the matter to have been resolved after its letter dated 14.11.2014 also does not constitute a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction. Once the petitioner had been informed of an order directing it to pay a quantified amount and it disputed the same, it was expected to pursue an appropriate remedy with reasonable diligence.
The application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed on 21.07.2017, nearly two years and ten months after the final order dated 22.09.2014. The Authority was, therefore, justified in examining the explanation furnished for such delay in the light of the petitioner's conduct. The finding that the petitioner had failed to disclose sufficient cause cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by the record. The plea of violation of natural justice also cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. Natural justice undoubtedly requires that a party affected by an adverse order should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity of hearing. However, the record in the present case does not establish that the petitioner remained wholly unaware of the proceedings and the adverse order until 2017. On the contrary, the contemporaneous proceedings record an appearance on behalf of the petitioner in 2012 and, independently, the subsequent correspondence establishes knowledge of the final order in 2014.
The challenge to the original order on the ground of insufficiency of evidence also does not warrant interference in the present proceedings. The Authority, after the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte, recorded the evidence led by respondent No.2, including the evidence of the Labour Inspector and Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Steno-typist, and thereafter adjudicated the claim.
The petitioner now seeks re-appreciation of that evidence and invites this Court to examine whether the evidence led by respondent No.2 was sufficient, whether the concerned workmen ought to have been examined and whether the wages register subsequently relied upon by the petitioner ought to have been accepted. These are essentially questions of fact and appreciation of evidence.
The jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate. This Court would not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the competent statutory Authority unless the findings suffer from jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case.
It is also significant that the petitioner had an opportunity to contest the claim before respondent No.1. Its representative appeared on 30.07.2012 and sought time to file the written statement. The matter was adjourned to 21.08.2012, but the petitioner thereafter failed to appear. The petitioner cannot now seek to reopen the entire adjudication merely by raising disputed questions of fact after an unexplained lapse of nearly three years.
The chronology of events is decisive: the proceedings commenced in 2012; Sh. R.K. Kaushik appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 30.07.2012 and sought time to file the written statement; the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 21.08.2012; the final order was passed on 22.09.2014; intimation thereof was issued on 10.10.2014; the petitioner responded on 14.11.2014; and the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed only on 21.07.2017.
The aforesaid chronology, coupled with the petitioner's own communication dated 14.11.2014, belies its plea that it acquired knowledge of the adverse order only in February, 2017. Respondent No.1 was thus justified in holding that the application was hopelessly belated and that the explanation furnished by the petitioner did not constitute sufficient cause.
The principle that an ex parte order may be recalled where a party establishes sufficient cause for its non-appearance cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner has failed to establish sufficient cause either for its non-appearance before respondent No.1 or for the substantial delay in seeking recall of the ex parte order.
In the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds no perversity, jurisdictional error, non-application of mind or violation of principles of natural justice in the order dated 15.12.2017. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
Once the challenge to the order dated 15.12.2017 fails, the consequential challenge to the original order dated 22.09.2014 also cannot succeed at this belated stage. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen a concluded statutory adjudication on disputed questions of fact after remaining inactive despite having knowledge of the adverse order.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, pending also stand disposed of.