Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd Iqbal Khan vs Assistant Labour Commissioner ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Serial No. 15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- WP(C) No.2287/2022
Mohd Iqbal Khan
..... Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Yashodhan Thakur, Advocate
Vs
Assistant Labour Commissioner District Doda & Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M A Bhat, Advocate
Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Vivek Mattoo, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
(15.10.2025)
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition,
has challenged order dated 09.06.2022, passed by
respondent No.1 whereby the application of the petitioner
for setting aside ex-parte award passed by respondent
No.1 on 23.02.2022 has been dismissed.
2. Heard and considered.
3. It appears the respondent No.2 filed an application under
Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act for recovery of an
amount of Rs.6,20,970/- against the Executive Engineer,
JKPCC, Kishtwar and the petitioner herein. In the said
application, the petitioner herein, who was impleaded as
respondent No.2 in the application filed by respondent
No.2 herein, was proceeded ex-parte in terms of order
dated 10.02.2014. Ex parte proceedings were also initiated
against the Executive Engineer, JKPCC, vide the same
order. However, later on, in terms of order dated
20.09.2014, the application filed by the Executive
Engineer, PCC, the ex parte proceedings against the said
respondent were set aside.
4. After the applicant (respondent No.2) led evidence in the
case, award dated 23.02.2022, came to be passed by
respondent No.1 herein, by virtue of which, the petitioner
herein was ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.6,20,970/-
as delayed wages along with compensation of Rs. 4300/-,
total Rs.6,63,970/- for its payment to respondent No.2
herein.
5. It seems that the petitioner herein filed an application for
setting aside ex parte order dated 23.02.2022 before
respondent No.1. In the application, besides contesting the
claim of respondent No.2 on merits, it was pleaded that
summons were not duly served upon the petitioner. It was
further pleaded that in the claim petition, the address of
the petitioner had been wrongly mentioned as R/o Doda,
Tehsil Doda, whereas the correct address is Khan Plaza,
opposite Dak Bungalow, Doda. On these grounds, it was
urged that the petitioner was not aware about the
pendency of the proceedings.
6. The aforesaid application came to be dismissed by
respondent No.1 by virtue of impugned order dated
06.02.2022. In the said order, it was observed by
respondent No.1 that the petitioner herein was duly served
with notice and even during the trial of the application
filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1, notice
was served upon the petitioner through Registered Post for
examining him as a witness of respondent-Executive
Engineer, JKPCC but still then he failed to put his
appearance before respondent No.1.
7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the
grounds that he was never served with the summons
issued by respondent No.1 and that the address given in
the petition filed by respondent No.2 before respondent
No.1, is not correct.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. Rule 8 of the Payment of Wages Procedure Rules provides
the procedure to be adopted by the Authority under the
Payment of Wages Act upon the appearance of the parties.
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule (8) provides that if an employer or his
representative fails to appear on the specified date, the
authority may proceed to hear and determine the
application ex parte. Proviso (2) sub-Rule (3) lays down
that an order passed under sub-Rule (2) may be set aside
and the application re-heard on good cause being shown
within one month of the date of said order.
10. From the above, it is clear that if an employer is able to
show a good cause for his non-appearance before the
Authority, the ex-parte order that may have been passed
by the Authority in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule (8) of the
Rules, the same can be recalled and the application can be
re-heard.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, the record shows
that on 23.07.2013, respondent No.2 filed the application
before the Authority and notice was issued to the
petitioner as well as to the other respondents. On
16.09.2013, representative of the petitioner, Mohd. Shafi,
(Supervisor) appeared before the Authority below. The
signature of Mohd. Shafi appears on the margin of the
order sheet. The matter was adjourned to 24.10.2013, on
which date the presence of one more representative of the
petitioner, Shri Deepak Sharma was recorded in the order
sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner stopped appearing before
the Authority below.
12. The record further reveals that the signatures of
petitioner-Mohd Iqbal Khan are appearing on the reverse
of the summons issued by the Authority for 16.09.2013.
The signatures appearing on the said summons upon
comparison with the signatures of the petitioner appearing
on the writ petition bear similarities. From this, it can be
inferred that the signatures appearing on the reverse of
the summons issued by the Authority for 16.09.2013
pertain to the petitioner. Besides this, during trial of the
case, summons were issued to the petitioner through
registered post for his appearance as a witness. A copy of
the postal receipt is available in the record of the Authority
below. All these documents indicate that the petitioner
was duly served with the summons and he was in
knowledge of the proceedings pending before the Authority
below.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
signatures of the petitioner on the summons are forged.
She has also submitted that even the signatures of
representative, Mohd. Shafi (Supervisor) appearing on the
order sheet are not genuine. I am afraid the contention of
the learned counsel cannot be accepted. There is a
presumption of correctness attached to the official acts
and the facts recorded in the official records. Therefore,
unless there is cogent material on record to show that the
signatures appearing on the summons or those appearing
on the order sheet of the Authority below are not genuine,
this Court would not be in a position to accept the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of 'R. R.
Engineering Company Vs. The Competent Authority
and others, 1974 Lab IC 1285', to contend that no
opportunity was given to the petitioner to establish that
service of notice was not effected upon him by the
Authority below.
15. In the above context, it is to be noted that the record
available before the Authority below clearly establishes
that the summons upon the petitioner had been served,
which is clear from the report of the process server. The
signature of the representative of the petitioner appearing
on the margin of the order sheet, is also available in the
record. It is not the case of the petitioner that Mohd. Shafi
(supervisor) was not his representative.
16. Under the circumstances, there was hardly anything
before the Authority below to rebut the official record, as
such, the contention of the petitioner could not have been
accepted. The facts before the Allahabad High Court in the
judgment cited above, were entirely different as compared
to the facts of the present case. Hence, the said judgment
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
17. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the impugned order passed by respondent
No.1. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed,
leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the award by
way of appropriate proceedings on its merits.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
15.10.2025
Sneha
