O R D E R

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition seeks to challenge the impugned orders dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (hereinafter referred as to „concerned authority‟), whereby, the claim of the respondents has been allowed with respect to difference of minimum wages. Vide order dated 06.09.2019, the review application filed by the petitioner has also been rejected.

2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.03.2019 would indicate that there were four applications filed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act of 1948‟) by the respective workman and the same were registered as Case No.30, 31, 32 and

92 of 2018.

3. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition seeks to challenge the impugned award with respect to all four workmen.

4. It is to be noted that the petitioner was required to file four separate writ petitions. Since, the same has not been done, therefore, the challenge to the award passed with respect to three cases, cannot be considered in the instant writ petition and instead, the instant writ petition is treated to have been filed only with respect to Case No.30/2018 titled as ‘Md. Mazhar vs.

The General Manager, MTNL and Anr.’

5. Taking note of the facts of Case No.30/2018, this court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while challenging the impugned award dated 06.03.2019 submits that after receiving of the notice, the petitioner engaged Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate as its counsel, however, the said counsel did not appear on subsequent dates of hearing; and accordingly, the impugned award has been passed ex-parte by the Concerned authority.

7. He places reliance on Form-IX of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules of 1950‟) to contend that if the counsel engaged by the petitioner did not appear, the concerned authority was under an obligation to issue summons to the petitioner in Form-IX of the Rules of 1950.

8. He also submits that even if there was no contest by the petitioner, the concerned authority ought to have satisfied itself with respect to justification of the claim raised by the workman before the said authority. He then contends that there is no justification recorded by the concerned authority; and therefore, in the absence of sufficient material, the impugned award deserves to be set aside as according to him, the findings are perverse.

9. This court has directed for issuance of notice to the respondents. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of respondent nos.1 to

4. Respondent no.5 is represented through its counsel.

10. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

11. As far as the submission qua issuance of summons in Form-IX is concerned, a bare perusal of Section 20(2) and Section 21 of the Act of 1948 would indicate that a notice in Form-IX is required to be issued to the opponent to appear before the Authority when an application under Section

20(2) and Section 21 of the Act of 1948 is entertained.

12. It is not the case of the petitioner that no notice of an application was received by the petitioner which has been entertained by the concerned authority.

13. Admittedly, the notice was received and the counsel was duly engaged but the counsel of the petitioner did not appear. However, the concerned Authority was not under an obligation to re-summon the petitioner, if the appointed representative remain absent when the matter is called out.

14. It is settled law that if summons are duly served upon a party and on his non-appearance or remaining absent on subsequent dates, the court is not under an obligation to re-issue the summons for ensuring his presence, rather the court is justified to proceed ex-parte against such party. The same has been prescribed under Order 9 Rule 6 and 8 of the Code of