PAL RADIATOR AND OIL COLLER v. RAM CHARAN AND ORS

1. Vide the present writ petition the petitioner has made a request for quashing the impugned orders dated 21.05.2014, 21.02.2013 and 23.09.2013 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and running an establishment which is covered under the under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954. Its employees filed an application under Section 20 (2) of the Act claiming minimum wages for the period from 01.03.2012 to 31.07.2012. The Authority under the Act on 19.10.2012 issued a notice to the petitioner for 14.12.2012. Thereafter various dates W.P.(C) 4957/2015 2015:DHC:11844 V were fixed for hearing in the matter but no one appeared for the petitioner. On 11.02.2013, the Authority again issued notice to the petitioner/respondent through courier for appearance on 21.02.2013. Thereafter, on 21.02.2013 the Authority had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on the basis of report of service through courier. Thereafter, the Authority under the Act after recording the evidences of the workers, on the basis of material before it, passed the order dated 23.09.2013 whereby the claim of the workmen/respondents was allowed and the management/petitioner was directed to pay the minimum wages of the said period to the workmen/respondents. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 28.12.2013 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.09.2013. Vide order 21.05.2014, the Authority dismissed the appHcation of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.09.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed CWP No.8207/2014 challenging the impugned order but withdrew the same with liberty to file afresh petition.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition whereby he has challenged the orderofthe Authority on the ground that he was never served of summon and notice of the proceedings initiated before the Authority. It is further contended that the factum ofservice upon aparty is Page 2 of[6] rebuttable presumption and once it is rebutted by the statement of a party coupled with the surrounding circumstances, the Court should give the party a chance to contest. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been denied the right to defend on a technical ground and this has led to the failure to substantive justice. It is further submitted that service by courier is hot an effective service and only a deemed status of service and hence the court should allow the party to contest the matter. It is further submitted that there was no document before the Authority to presume the due service upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner otherwise has a good case on merit. On these facts, it is prayed that the orders dated 21.05.2014, 23.09.2013 and 21.02.2013 may be set aside.

4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Anil Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the respondents were not employed or working with them. There is no contention in the writ petition that the salary for the period from 01.03.2012 to 31.07.2012 had been paid to workers as per minimum wages. No contention has been raised by the petitioner on merit in the present writ petition. It is also apparent that the Authority under the Act had not acted in haste but had repeatedly sent the W.P.(C) 4957/2015 p processes to the petitioner, informing him of the pendency of the matter before it and calhng upon him to contest the same. The Authority under the Act has clearly recorded in its order dated 23.09.2013 that despite the summons being sent through speed post and courier for appearance on 14.12.2012, 11.02.2013 and 21.02.2013, the petitioner failed to appear and participate in the proceedings. In the order dated 21.05.2014 it is clearly observedthat as per report of courier available on file, notice for 21.02.2013 was duly delivered to the petitioner.

6. From the perusal of this order it is apparent that the concerned Authority has duly applied its mind and after going through the record, did not find any merit in the application and hence, rejected it. Even before this court, the petitioner has failed to point out any fact which can show that the order of the Authority was contrary to the record or the law. The findings of the Authority is based on the facts on record and which fact is that the petitioner stood served by DTDC Courier service. The document produced clearly shows that the courier was duly delivered but was refused to accept on 24.12.2012 at 05.40 p.m. by the addressee. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was situated at the address on which the processes were sent. His only contention was that he was in the process of shifting to A Sonipat. However, it is not the claim of the petitioner that he had vacated the premises or was not in occupation of the premises on which the processes were sent. His contention that he cameto Imow ofthe order dated 23.09.2013 from his neighbours clearly shows that he was very much occupying the same premises on which the processes were sent and reported delivered. ® 7, Since the processes stood duly served, there is no question ofdeeming service. The Authority has not deemed the due service of the processes. In ^ this case the process was duly served/delivered upon the petitioner.

8. In view of these facts, I find no error in the order of the Authority dated 21.5.2014 and 21.02.2013 whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte and his application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed, i

9. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23.09.2013 ® whereby the claim of the respondents was upheld by the Authority and the petitioner was directed to pay the wages as per minimum wages and pay double the difference in wages under Section 20 (3) of the Act. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.09.2013. The said order is based on the evidences produced before the Authority under the Act. The order also shows that the Authority had W.P.(C) 4957/2015 Page[5] of 6 applied its mind and had granted the reliefto the applicants for which they were entitled to. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.09.2013.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. I ' C.M.No.8954/2015 (for stay) I !

11. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, this application has I become infructuous and the same is dismissed. sr MAY 2015 rb _b r» deep! sharma (JUDGE) Page 6 of[6]