1 CGHC010281452024 2026:CGHC:36839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 192 of 2024  Nityanand Patel S/o Shri Devdhar Patel Aged About 53 Years Profession- Vehicl Owner, R/o Gram Londhra, Tehsil - Baramkela District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh, Chhattisagrh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Bodhram Soni S/o Shri Annad Ram Soni Aged About 41 Years Profession - Vehicle Driver, R/o Gram Sakartunga - Tehsil Baramkela District - Sarangrh - Bilaigrh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 18.8.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 Issue the writ of Certiorari to quash/set-aside the impugned rejection order dated 11/07/2024 in case no. 1/P.W.Act/2023 passed by the Learned Labour Court (Authority under Payment of wages act, 1936) and allow the application under Order 9 rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code 1905 & U/s 5 of the limitation act preferred by the petitioner for set aside the award dated 25/09/2019 in case no.12/P.W.-Act/2017/Civil passed by the learned Labour Court, Raigarh. 10.2 Issue appropriate direction to the authority as the Hon'ble court thinks fit. 2 10.3 Issue appropriate direction to the authority for the proper adjudication of the matter. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any other order/orders, direction/directions in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner against the respondent. 2) Facts of present case are that respondent-workman preferred an application u/s 15(2)(3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1936’] before the learned Labour Court, Raigarh claiming therein that out of Rs. 2,25,000/-, an amount of Rs. 1,44,330/- was paid by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 80,670/- was still unpaid. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the learned Court by registered mode and subsequently, notice was issued through paper publication in ‘Jankarm’ Newspaper on 13.10.2017. Despite service of notice through paper publication, petitioner failed to appear before the learned Labour Court. Finally, order was passed on 25.9.2019 whereby petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs. 80,670/- within period of 30 days. Thereafter, workman moved application for execution and during execution proceeding, notice was served upon the petitioner. After receipt of that notice, petitioner moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with application for condonation of delay. Application moved by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 11.7.2024 on the ground of delay. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent- workman raised frivolous claim whereas he was duly paid Rs. 1,44,330/- and there was no balance amount. He further submits that notice was never served upon the petitioner, therefore the action on the part of learned Labour Court of passing an ex-party award is highly unjustified and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner failed to make payment of wages therefore petitioner moved application u/s u/s 15(2)(3) of Act of 1936 which was allowed by learned Labour Court and award was passed directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 80,670/-. He further submits that petitioner moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC before the learned Labour Court at a later stage and the same was rightly rejected. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6) A careful perusal of record would reveal that initially, notice was issued to the petitioner through registered mode and subsequently, notice was served through paper publication in ‘Jankarm’ Newspaper on 13.10.2017 but petitioner failed to appear before the learned Court. Vide order dated 25.9.2019, learned Labour Court passed an award directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 80,670/- within period of 30 days to the 4 workman. 7) Thereafter, petitioner approached the learned Labour Court in year 2022 and moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with application for condonation of delay. Learned Labour Court rejected the application on the ground that petitioner failed to appear despite service of notice through paper publication. 8) Admittedly, before passing the award, notice was issued to the petitioner by registered mode as well as by paper publication therefore, in my opinion, learned Labour Court rightly passed the ex-party award on 25.9.2019. Also, petitioner moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 before the learned Labour Court in the year 2022 whereas award was passed way back in the year 2019, therefore learned Labour Court rightly rejected the application so moved by the petitioner. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.19 10:15:53 +0530