JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.04.2019, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal No. 01 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed directing him to pay difference of wages of Rs. 3,83,356.00 to the respondent. Petitioner has also prayed to set aside the order dated 29.09.2016, passed in M.W. No. 13/2015, whereby claim of the applicant-respondent regarding payment of difference of wages is allowed.

3. Brief fact of the case is that the applicant-respondent filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Age through the General Secretary, Jharkhand General Kamgar Union, Ranchi alleging therein that he worked in the Forest Range Office from 02.01.2009 to 30.08.2015 and his wages was fixed as Rs. 3,000/- for 26 working days in a month but he was paid Rs. 1,500/- only per month from the office of Forest Range Officer, Mahilong Territorial, District-Ranchi and claimed for difference of wages and compensation at the rate of ten times of difference money. After service of notice, petitioner appeared but could not file show-cause and relevant documents and the proceeding proceeded. During evidence stage, respondent-applicant had filed his evidence with affidavit in which he had stated that he worked from 01.01.2009 to 30.08.2015 at Check Post of Forest Department situated in Angara as Cattle Guard. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was fixed as his wage but he was given a sum of Rs. 1,500/- only and rest amount was never paid rather it was assured that whenever allotment will be given by the Government, the dues will be cleared and since the applicant-respondent repeated his demand for payment of balance amount, he was ousted from the job. Another witness of the applicant-respondent namely Puskar Munda also filed his evidence on oath in support of evidence of the applicant-respondent. Both the witnesses stood discharged without cross examination as no one was there to cross examine on behalf of the opposite party-petitioner. Upon conclusion of proceeding, vide order dated 29.09.2016, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi allowed the application filed by the applicant-respondent under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC holding that claim of the applicant regarding payment of minimum wages on account of less payment than the minimum wages was correct and directed for payment of a sum of Rs. 1,91,678/- including one time compensation, total whereof comes to Rs. 3,83,356/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the opposite party-petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 20(6) of the Minimum Wages Act before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal No. 1 of 2017, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2019 holding that the conclusion arrived at by the Court concerned needs no interference. Being aggrieved by orders of two Courts, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

5. Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged in plantation work and as such he could not take steps for filing show-cause and relevant documents and the case stood proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC for evidence on behalf of the applicant/ respondent and ended ex-parte. Learned counsel further submits that false claim has been made by the claimant and the Courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion and directed the petitioner to pay balance amount and the compensation, which is fit to be interfered by this Court. From perusal of representation of th