M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish it was wrongly impleaded. The Authority's order indicated that the management's name was corrected to M/s Asian Aura India, and fresh summons were issued and duly served, with no objection recorded thereafter. The Petitioner's assertion of a separate identity was insufficient without proving the management proceeded against was a distinct concern. The Court also found that the amendment of the management's name did not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings, especially when claimants' evidence was already tendered. Regarding the application to set aside the ex-parte order, the Court found no error in the Authority's application of the prescribed procedure, noting it was dismissed on grounds of delay under Rule 29(4) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, and the inapplicability of Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Citing Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, the Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory, and interference is warranted only for jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or error of law apparent on the record. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate any of these grounds. The petition was dismissed, and the deposited amount was to be released to respondents 2-6, with the Petitioner directed to pay the remaining amount with interest.

Facts

M/s Asian Aura (Petitioner) assailed an order dated 28.12.2017 by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, directing it to pay Rs. 2,16,480/- to respondents 2-6. The Petitioner also challenged an order dated 18.11.2019 dismissing its application to set aside the ex-parte order. Respondents 2-6 had filed claims alleging payment of wages less than the minimum notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for the period 01.09.2016 to 28.02.2017. The Petitioner claimed it only learned of the 28.12.2017 order upon receiving notice of execution proceedings on 17.12.2018, and that its representative had only appeared to point out a typographical error in the management's name. The Authority dismissed the application to set aside the ex-parte order, citing delay and inapplicability of Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,08,240/- as per court directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner was wrongly impleaded as the management in the claims filed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and whether the amendment of the management's name rendered the award unsustainable? 2. Whether the Authority erred in dismissing the Petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 08.06.2017 and the final order dated 28.12.2017, considering the delay and the applicability of procedural rules? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended it was wrongly impleaded as the claims were initially filed against 'M/s Asin Aura India' and later amended to 'M/s Asian Aura India', asserting its separate identity through GST registration and proprietorship documents. It also argued that proceedings were initiated against a non-legal entity and relied on cases like Miraj Marketing Corpn. v. Vishaka Engineering and Svapn Constructions v. IDPL Employees Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. The Petitioner further argued that the Authority failed to appreciate its explanation for non-participation and that the dismissal of its application to set aside the ex-parte order was erroneous. Revenue/State's arguments: None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice.