High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
EXECU.OFFICER,MUNCIPAL BOARD,RAJGARH v OFFICER APPOINTED UNDER THE M.W.ACT &ANR - CW Case No. 1021 of 2005  RD-RJ 2778 (18 May 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1021/2005
The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh
The Officer appointed under the Minimum Wages
Act, Rajgarh and Anr.
Date of Order : 18/05/2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. Dilip Mulchandani for the petitioner.
Mr. Pritam Solanki for the respondent.
BY THE COURT:-
By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annex.1 dated 24.5.2002 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Churu (for short 'the
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in compliance of the order Annex.1, the petitioner has also made payment to the respondent as awarded by the
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of limitation for filing an application under the
Minimum Wage Act is six months and the claim was made beyond the period of six months. It has further been conended that the authority fell in error in condoning the delay.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though the claim was made beyond the period of limitation, but an application supported by affidavit of the respondent was filed seeking condonation of delay. The authority after having satisfied with the reasons explained in the application seeking codonation of delay, condoned the delay.
Proviso to Section 20 (2) of the Act provides that if the authority is satisfied that the workman was prevented from making the claim within six months, then the delay in filing the claim can be condoned and thus, the authority has rightly condoned the delay.
It appears from the order impugned that despite several opportunities, no reply to the application was filed by the petitioner. Even on several occasions, the petitioner remained ex-parte and on the application, the ex-parte order was set aside. Again the petitioner remained ex-parte and ultimately the ex-parte order has been passed against the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner goes to show that despite several opportunities, the petitioner failed to contest the claim before the
Authority. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the conclusion arrived at by the Authority cannot be said to be erroneous.
The writ petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, it is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.