[2025:RJ-JP:17632] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3841/2017 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society Primary Health Center, Sirsi Jaipur 3. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Block Sirsi Jhotwara Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus Sannu Devi W/o Shri Santosh Kumar, Plot No.120, Parik Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Sirsi Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, learned Additional Government Counsel with Ms. Anjali Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/04/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th December, 2014 passed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on application No. MW.20/2013 as well as against the order dated 6th April, 2016 passed by the same authority, whereby the application for recalling the earlier order dated 4th December, 2014 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the purpose of seeking relief under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the employee knock the doors of the Competent Authority is required to prove the relationship of Master and Servant as well as other [2025:RJ-JP:17632] (2 of 4) [CW-3841/2017] necessary facts. In the instant case, although on filing application by the non-petitioner, notices were issued to the petitioners however, the reply to the application could not be filed and only on account of not filing reply to the application, the contents of the application filed by the non-petitioner have been taken to be proved and only on the basis of the fact that there was no reply to the application on record, order dated 4th December, 2014 has been passed. However subsequently, when application for recalling was filed, the same was also not entertained on the ground that on earlier occasion at the time of deciding the application filed by the non-petitioner, even on receipt of notices, reply was not filed. Hence, it was held that there was no ground to recall the order dated 4th December, 2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as such the petitioner could not defend her cause properly before the Competent Authority under the Act of 1948 and had there being any proper opportunity, they would have placed the sufficient evidence to prove that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-petitioner states that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived for the reasons that despite having served with the notices before the Competent Authority under the Act of 1948, the petitioners chose not to file reply; and only when the applications for compliance filed by the petitioner, in order to defeat the rights of the non- petitioner, an application for recalling the order dated 4th December, 2014 was filed by the petitioner, which has rightly been rejected by the Competent Authority. Learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:17632] (3 of 4) [CW-3841/2017] respondents has further submits that there was sufficient material on record before the Competent Authority to come to the conclusion that the non-petitioner was entitled for the relief as granted by the Competent Authority. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also examined the record. On Bare perusal of order dated 4th December, 2014, it would reveal that instead of examining the application filed by non-petitioner on merits on the basis of documents and other evidence, the Competent Authority has passed its order merely on the fact that reply to the application was not filed by the petitioner. While arriving at such finding, the settled position of law that it was for the applicant to prove its own merit, has been ignored by the Court below and it is clear that the petitioners could not file their reply and place their evidence to controvert the case put up by the non-petitioner. 6. During the course of arguments it has been admitted by both the parties that the amount awarded by the Competent Authority vide order dated 4th December, 2014 has been disbursed by the petitioner and received by the non-petitioner. 7. Under these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners to file reply and documents before the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the order dated 4th December, 2014 is modified to the extent that a fresh adjudication shall be made by the Competent Authority after receiving reply to the application and evidence. The petitioner shall file its reply within the period of fifteen days and thereafter both the parties shall be given fair opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. The Competent Authority shall [2025:RJ-JP:17632] (4 of 4) [CW-3841/2017] decide the application within the period of six months from the date of receipt of instant order. 8. Accordingly, the civil writ petition is disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU /223