WA NO. 460 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:30914 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 460 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.15178 OF 2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/PETITIONER: ABDUL KHADER AGED 74 YEARS PROPRIETOR, AL-IQBAL HOSPITAL, CHENTRAPPINNI, THRISSUR (DISTRICT), PIN 680 687, PIN - 680687 BY ADVS. P.RAMAKRISHNAN K.A.HAZAN PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE MANOJKUMAR G. ASHOK MENON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680684 2 THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THRISSUR., PIN - 680001 3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR., PIN – 680684 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENTHRAPPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 687., PIN - 680687 OTHER PRESENT: SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 460 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:30914 JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J. The present writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 20.6.2024 wherein the appellant-petitioner had challenged the action of the labour officer under the Minimum Wages Act for determining the wages of 87 employees for the period September 2005 to February 2006. The aforementioned application was filed by the respondent in 2011, Ext.P2. In those proceedings, the appellant-petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 28.1.2008. The recovery proceedings, Ext.P1, was initiated in the year 2011 and moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 6.11.2012 which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the Labour Officer has determined the compensation in terms of money to the tune of Rs.10,08,840/-. 2. It is contended that the order of the labour court and as well as the Single Bench did not notice the fact that the Rule 33(4) of the Minimum Wages Rule do not envisage any limitation for moving an application. In other words, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not excluded in terms of provisions of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. All these factors if had been looked into, no harm and prejudice would have been caused to the other side by WA NO. 460 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:30914 giving a chance to the appellant-petitioner to lead evidence. 3. Noticing the contentions, we had on 7.3.2025 passed the following order: Sri.P.Ramakrishnan submitted that the provisions of Sub- rule (4) of Rule 33 of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules do not oust the non-applicability of provisions of Limitation Act even if the application for setting aside the ex parte was not filed within one(1) month. There is no bar for seeking recalling of the order along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Already a sum of Rs.5 lakhs out of Rs.10,08,840/- (Rupees ten lakhs eight thousand eight hundred forty only) has been deposited. We are of the view that though the appellant-petitioner have been not diligent in moving an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 28.01.2008, but in the interest of justice, the appellant should have been given a chance to contest the averment of non-deposit of minimum wages of eighty seven(87) workmen for the period September, 2005 to February, 2006. Issue notice before admission. Sri.T.K.Vipindas, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Coercive measures against the appellants are ordered to be stayed till the next date of hearing. Interim order is subject to the quantification of the cost which this Court will determine on the next date of hearing. 4. Considering the predicament and the fact that the Rule 33(4) of the Minimum Wages Rules which is extracted herein below does not envisage any bar in moving the application. Obviously, the applicability of Section 5 cannot be ruled out, the courts below ought to have considered this aspect either by framing the issue and given a chance to lead evidence to show the delay either intentional or bonafide. WA NO. 460 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:30914 33(4) An order passed under Sub-rule (2) or Sub-rule(3) may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown by the defaulting party within one month of the date of the said order, and the application shall then be reheard after service of notice on the opposite party on the date fixed for rehearing in the manner specified in Sub-rule (I). 5. Be that as it may, since the matter has already reached in an intra court appeal, we do not deem it appropriate to traverse on such issue and deem it appropriate to set aside the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner subject to consolidated cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the respondents to be appropriated as per their own whim and wish. Payment of cost shall be a condition precedent. There shall be a direction to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to consider the application of the workmen by giving chance to the appellant-petitioner to file reply and lead evidence by giving three-three (3-3) effective opportunities in a span of 1-1 each and decide the case within a period of four months. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- sab K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE