Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is common in all the petitions and Sri B.N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Workers’ Union/Karmchari Sangh.

2. All the petitions are based on similar and identical facts and raises a common point for consideration. The writ petition No. 19852 of 2011 is treated to be a leading petition with the consensus of both the contesting parties. Therefore, where ever necessary facts as contained as per the pleadings of the leading petition alone would be referred to.

3. The petitioner is a company having one of its units/factory in Babina, District Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner claims that its aforesaid unit was closed on 30.12.2000 and a communication of its closure was sent to the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 12.11.2001. The Deputy Labour Commissioner had required certain informations regarding the aforesaid closure and that the same were duly furnished. Thus, the Deputy Labour Commissioner had the information of the closure of the aforesaid unit/factory w.e.f. 30.12.2000. At the time of closure of the unit/factory it had 153 workers on its roll.

4. Several applications under The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to be filed by the Workers’ Union/Karmchari Sangh claiming wages for different periods after the alleged closure. Those applications were allowed. In the leading petition the claim was for wages for the period January to March 2001 and it was allowed vide order dated 16.5.2001.

5. The petitioner in 2010 moved applications for the recall of the orders passed for the payment of wages to the workers. These recall applications were rejected. In the leading petition the recall application was rejected on 22.10.2010.

6. The sole cause for rejecting the recall applications is that the Prescribed Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner had no power of review and therefore, the applications are not maintainable.

7. The above orders dated 22.10.2010 and 16.5.2001 passed in leading petition and similar orders passed in connected petitions have been impugned through these petitions.

8. The argument of Sri Sinha, on behalf of petitioner is that after the closure of the unit/factory the claims for payment of wages under the aforesaid Act were not maintainable. The proceedings were ex parte. Therefore, the applications for recall were maintainable but the prescribed authority without making a distinction between a substantive and a procedural review has illegally rejected the same.

9. Sri B.N. Rai, on the other hand contends that the petitioner had full and complete knowledge of the proceedings but failed to participate and therefore, cannot apply for recall of the orders. The recall applications as filed by the petitioner are in the nature of review. Under the Act, the prescribed authority has no power to review its order. Therefore, the applications have rightly been rejected. The petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands.

10. One of the points germane to the controversy at hand, apart from adjudging the validity of the basic orders directing for payment of wages is the nature of the proceedings on the applications of the petitioner for recall and if they are in the form of procedural review whether the Prescribed Authority could have rejected them as not maintainable as it has no power to review.

11. I have gone through the basic order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the prescribed authority and finds that it records that none has appeared for the management and that no reply on their behalf was filed. The order dated 22.12.2010 only records that the authority is not possessed of any power to review and therefore, the recall/review application is not maintainable and is rejected. The prescribed authority in passing the said order failed to touch the merits of the applications.

12. It may not be out