IMPORTANT POINT
The authority under the Minimum Wages Act must provide an opportunity to be heard before issuing orders, but failure to appear after proper notice results in valid ex parte orders, and delays in challenging such orders beyond the statutory period cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the exhibits referred to hereinbelow shall be as obtaining in W.P.(C) 15178 of 2013.

2. W.P.(C) 15178 of 2013: The petitioner is the proprietor of Al-Iqbal Hospital, Chentrappinni, which was established in 1996.

Petitioner is a businessman in gulf countries and the Administrator looks after the affairs of the hospital in his absence. The hospital has six consulting doctors and a Resident Medical Officer, along with 20 permanent employees across various departments. Additionally, there were 45 trainee nursing students who were undergoing mandatory one-year training as part of their studies and most of them leaving the hospital after completing their training. The petitioner ensured that all the employees were enrolled in the Employees Provident Fund.

3. While so, the petitioner received Ext. P1 revenue recovery notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), the 3rd respondent for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,17,680/-together with interest @ 12% per annum from 28.01.2008 due towards arrears of wages ordered in MWA 10/2006 by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Thrissur, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the “MW Act' for short). The petitioner states that he was not aware of any proceedings before the 2nd respondent nor he received any notice from the 2nd respondent. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent passed an ex parte order on 28.01.2008 on a claim filed by the Assistant Labour Officer, the 1st respondent, the Inspector appointed under Section 19 of the MW Act for payment of difference in minimum wages to 87 employees for the period from September, 2005 to February, 2006. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,08,840/-being the difference in minimum wages together with compensation of Rs. 10,08,840/-to the employees concerned.

4. On coming to know about the ex parte order in MWA 10/06, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 application to set aside the order with Ext. P3 application to condone delay of 1696 days. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 414 of 2013 and this Court, by Ext. P5 judgment, directed the second respondent to consider Exts. P2 and P3 applications in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Court also ordered that the revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext. P1 shall be put on hold if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is remitted with the Assistant Labour Officer.

5. The 2nd respondent, by Ext. P6 order, dismissed Exts. P2 and P3 applications on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish that there was sufficient cause for not filing the petition to set aside ex parte order within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 (Kerala MW Rules), and that the Rules do not empower the authority to condone the delay in filing a petition, which is filed 1743 days beyond the time stipulated in the Rules.

6. Ext. P6 order is impugned in this writ petition. It is contended that the Authority under the MW Act did not provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing an order in the application filed under Section 20(2) of the MW Act. The petitioner states that he did not receive any notice from the 2nd respondent in person. He intermittently goes to gulf countries in connection with his business and in his absence, the Administrator is looking after the affairs of the hospital. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent went wrong in taking the trainee nursing students as employees of the petitioner. It is also contended that if sufficient cause is shown, the 2nd respondent can set aside the ex pa