AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Order No. 02
I.A. No. 1314 of 2011
Heard counsel for the parties.
This L.P.A. is barred by 14 days. However, in view of the reasons given in the application filed for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
I.A. No. 1314 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly.
L.P.A. No. 148 of 2011
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant in the proceeding under Sub-Section 3 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the party was M/s Kailash Stone Works, Pakur and it has been shown as represented by Shri Sanjay Makhija.
The order has been passed on 14.11.2008 and thereafter the recovery proceedings were initiated and ultimately on 04.10.2010, order was issued for issuing non-bailable warrants. The Petitioner in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 6458 of 2010 has submittd that he is not representative of M/s. Kailash Stone Works and also submitted that non-bailable warrant has been issued against him and it is also submitted that he had No. knowledge of the proceedings taken before the said authority wherein order was passed on 14.11.2008.
The Petitioner''s contention that he came to know about the issuance of non-bailable warrants issued against him from the process server. The learned Single Judge refused to entertain such writ petition after observing that if the Petitioner had No. concern, he could have raised such objection before the authority concerned but admittedly he did not choose to do so. In the writ petition, it is not mentioned as to when the Petitioner learnt about the ex-parte order dated 14.11.2008, passed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), and Petitioner did not choose to file appeal against the said order and it was pertainingly noted that there is nothing to show that the said Firm did take any step against the order dated 14.11.2008.
The request of the Petitioner appears to be absolutely frivolous in view of the fact that the order was against M/s. Kailash Stone Works and according to the Petitioner, he has nothing to do with the said firm neither he is a proprietor nor partner of the firm and it is also submitted that he is not even representative of the firm. It is also a fact that the Petitioner did not plead what steps were taken by the firm. The Petitioner for the reasons best known to him do not want to bring all these facts to the notice of the authority concerned in recovery proceedings before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and wants adjudication of the disputed question of facts in a writ jurisdiction, the question like; whether the Petitioner is a representative of the firm or not and whether the order was passed against the firm after due service upon the firm or not and whether any appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.11.2008 by the firm itself and what was the fate of that appeal etc.
In view of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant referred above, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. which is accordingly dismissed.