VISHWANATH JHA @ MOHAN JHA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

in the order sheet the parties were aware of different dates and that is how one of such dates i.e. 1.8.1997 the counsel for the petitioners before the D.C.L.R. had sought time by filing an application for filing their written statement. It is true that Annexure ‘B’ would go to show that even after particular date was fixed neither the order sheet was being maintained by the D.C.L.R. nor the counsel for either party or both the parties were keeping track of the case but then in absence of any proceedings recorded by the authority it would be difficult to hold that the petitioners were having knowledge of the final order dated 18.3.1998 so as to be disentitled from maintaining their statutory appeal on account of its not being filed within a period of limitation of 30 days. There is nothing on record to show that the final order dated 18.3.1998 was either sent to the petitioners soon after it is being passed by the D.C.L.R. or even their counsel 5 appearing before the D.C.L.R. was shown the order. In view of this conclusion arrived by this Court it must be held that the appeal filed by the petitioners with a duly self contained application seeking condonation of delay was not considered in just and proper manner by the appellate authority who has rather pedantically proceeded to dismiss the appeal by giving a literal interpretation to section 20(6) of the Bihar Amendment Act. It is true that section 20(6) lays down the period of limitation of 30 days from the date of the order but then in order to bind such person, the order passed thereon either must be communicated or be at least known to him, otherwise a situation may arise that an authority may pass an order not on a date fixed and the party will never come to know of the same in the next 30 days and eventually will have to give up statutory right of appeal for no fault on his part. Therefore it must be held that whenever a final order is passed by any quasi judicial authority on a date not fixed for passing such order, it would be absolutely necessary for him to inform the parties about passing of its final order so that the valuable 6 right of appeal is not taken away only on account non-communication/ non- information of passing of the final order. That being so, this Court must hold the appellate order to be wholly bad in law and unsustainable and accordingly, Annexure 1, the appellate order, is hereby quashed with a direction to the Collector of Madhepura district to hear the appeal afresh on merits and pass an order within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It would be open for the petitioners to press all the issues against the impugned order passed by the D.C.L.R. as has been raised in this writ application. It goes without saying that till the appeal is not finally disposed of, the order of the D.C.L.R. and the impugned award passed by him shall not be given effect to. Let it be made clear that this Court has made no opinion on the actual claim of respondent no.4 and that will be decided by the appellate authority strictly in accordance with the provision of the Minimum Wages Act. 7 With aforementioned observation, application stands