The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provision 'within one month of the date of the said order' in Rule 34[4] of the Rules, which the court interpreted to mean the date of communication of the order on the affected person and held that the period of limitation would commence only from the date of his knowledge of the ex parte order.

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

Petitioner-employer, issued with a notice to appear before the 1st respondent - Labour Officer, Minimum Wages Authority in a proceeding u/s 20[2] of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [for short 'Act'], when not available at the postal address, the postal authorities placed the intimation in the post box assigned to the petitioner, at Chikmagalur, which was not opened by the petitioner since away at Mumbai and on return on 29.5.2012, having opened the post box though noticed the intimation, nevertheless awaited further notice from the Minimum Wages Authority. According to the petitioner, on receipt of a copy of the order dated 26.9.2012, acknowledged on 10.1.2013, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the order placing him ex parte and to extend an opportunity of hearing, which when, rejected by endorsement dated 22.2.2013 Annexure-C, has presented this petition.

2. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, beyond cavil of doubt, is promulgated with the laudable object of fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments, and a procedure to adjudicate upon disputes over alleged contravention of the Act, as well as penalties. The specific remedy to recover minimum wages when such wages are not paid or short paid to any employee is governed by section 20 of the Act. The issues arising there from involve disputed questions of fact requiring an investigation.

3. Sub-section [2] of Section 20 enables an employee to file an application for determination of the minimum wages unpaid or short paid by the employer, while sub-section [3] invests a jurisdiction in the Authority to hear the parties, extend reasonable opportunity of hearing and hold such further inquiry as may be necessary. Even in the absence of the employer, after due service of notice of hearing and no resistance to the claim of the employee, the Authority is required to consider the material on record placed by the workman as well as the evidence both oral and documentary, so placed, and pass an order. The Authority is required to discharge the statutory duty of adjudication of the dispute brought before it, if the employer does not choose to appear and oppose the claim.

4. The Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958, [for short 'Rules'] framed in exercise of power u/s 30 of the Act, provides amongst others, under Rule 34, the appearance of parties in a proceeding u/s 20[2] of the Act, requiring the Authority to serve upon the employer by registered post a notice in Form XII to appear before him on a particular date fixed for hearing the application filed by the employee. Sub-rule [2] states that if the employer fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may hear and determine the application ex-parte. However, sub-rule [4] provides that an order under sub-rule [2] or [3] may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown by the defaulting party within one month from the date of the order.

5. Thus the absence of the employer, for valid and sufficient cause the employer may seek recalling of the order passed by the Authority. Though the Act does not provide for a remedy, in such a situation, nevertheless, is covered by sub-rule [4] of Rule 34 of the Rules, which reads thus:-

34. Appearance of Parties:-

[1] XXX XXX XXX

[2] XXX XXX XXX

[3] XXX XXX XXX

[4] An order passed under sub-rule [2] or sub-rule [3] may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown by the defaulting party within one month of the date of the said order, and the application shall then be reheard after service of notice on the opposite party of the date fixed for re-hearing, in the manner specified in sub-rule [1].

6. In the instant case though 1st respondent - Authority issued a notice of hearing to the petitioner, by registered post, nevertheless, the postal authorities placed an intimation letter in the post box of the petitioner at Chikmagalur, while petitioner, was, away at Mumbai. Thus, there was no 'service' of notice on the petitioner of the proceeding instituted by t