G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s):—

“i. Issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in M.W Appeal Case No. 03/2018 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Appellate Tribunal, Bhagalpur whereby and where under the Respondent No. 3 has been pleased to dismiss the said case ex-parte without hearing the petitioner on the grounds of limitation without going into the merits of the case.

ii. Issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 4 in favour of Respondent No. 7 in Case No. MW (1)- 30/2017 and ordered the Petitioner to pay Rs. 24000/- as the difference amount and 6 times compensation i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/-, making it a total sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- (One Lac, Sixty Eight Thousand only) to the respondent No.5 ex-parte without hearing the petitioner.

iii. To pass such other orders as may deem fit and proper.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint submitted by respondent No. 4 to the Labour Superintendent, Katihar, respondent No. 5 instituted a claim under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on behalf of respondent No. 7, one Rahul Kumar @ Chotu, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Purnea on 04.09.2017. The said complaint, registered as Case No. M.W. (1)-30/2017, alleged that respondent No. 7 had been working under the petitioner from January 2010 to August 2017, i.e., for a period of eight years, seven months and twenty-five days, and that an amount of Rs. 8,24,000/- remained unpaid towards minimum wages.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that his statement was recorded by respondent No. 5 on 20.09.2017, wherein he stated that respondent No. 7 was working in his jewellery shop from April 2008 to January 2010 and called him only, whenever customised jewellery orders were received. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 7 was merely a casual worker and was paid Rs. 200/- on daily daily wages whenever he worked. The petitioner also alleged that on 28.08.2017, respondent No. 7 unnecessarily got into argument, abused the petitioner, and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as extortion money, leading the neighbouring shopkeepers to intervene, although respondent No. 7 managed to escape from there.

4. The petitioner asserts that statements of respondent No. 7 are self-contradictory. While in the complaint petition he claimed to have worked from 2009 to August 2017, but in his subsequent statement dated 03.04.2018 he claimed to work in the shop from January 2010 to August 2017, which clearly mala fide intention to harass and extort money from him.

5. The petitioner contends that the Assistant Labour Commissioner passed an order dated 06.04.2018 in haste and without affording him the opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the complaint itself was time-barred. According to the petitioner, the Minimum Wages Act mandates that claim should be filed within six months from the date on which the wage becames due. In the present case, the claim was filed after a delay of more than eight years and seven months, without any application for condonation of delay.

6. The petitioner further submits that even the order-sheet reflects that respondent No. 7 did not appear on three consecutive dates, whereas the petitioner appeared on the dates and even an ex parte order was passed against him. He alleges that due to transfer of the Authority, he could not get the next date fixed and hence, could not appear on the date.

7. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Authority passed the ex parte order without considering the merits of the case.

8. Upon learning of the order dated 06.04.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Bhagalpur. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal merely on the ground of limit