Honble MADAN, J. — Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned Award passed by the Judge, Labout Court, Chittorgarh dated 19.01.1988(Annex-P/3). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the Mahamantri (Secretary) of the Public Works Department Labour Union Rawat Bhata had filed an application under Section 21(1) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) on 16.6.1987 before the Prescribed Authority i.e. Judge, Labour Court Chittorgarh alleging therein that the names of the workers as per the annexed list who are working for the last 2 years under the petitioners Department as daily-wagers, were not paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day and they claim a total amount of Rs. 5,481/- as difference of wages and the grievance of the workers is that they were not paid minimum wages at the revised rate. (2). After registration of the claim petition, the prescribed Authority respondent No.2 fixed the date for reply of the petitioners on 10.11.1987 at Camp Rawatbhata. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that perusal of the order-sheet which is annexed to this writ petition(Annex-P/2) would clearly reveal that no hearing took place on 10th of November, 1987 before the Prescribed Authority. Further there is no endorsement about the proceedings having taken place on the said date but later on notices were issued to the present petitioners for hearing on 10.12.1987. The petitioners have further contended that perusal of the order-sheet (Annex- P/2) further reveals that there is no mention in the order-sheet with regard to the fact as to whether the officer-in-charge of the petitioner had received any copy of the claim petition/application filed by respondent No.l before the Prescribed Authority alongwith the notices dated 10.12.1987. Since the Assistant Engineer was busy in some famine work he had deputed a representative on his behalf to appear before the Authority and also directed him to move an application for seeking time from the Authority in this regard so that a proper reply could be filed by the Assistant Engineer. (3). Since the Assistant Engineer was busy in some famine work he had deputed a representative on his behalf to appear before the Authority and also directed him to move an application for seeking time from the Authority in this regard so that a proper reply could be filed by the Assistant Engineer. (3). It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that an application was moved on their behalf before the Prescribed Authority on 9.12.1987 with a prayer for summoning of the record from Chittorgarh so as to enable the Petitioners to file an appropriate reply to the claim petition. This fact is fully borne out from the order-sheet dated 10.12.1987. It is contended by Shri Vyas that having taken cognizance of the said application it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have dealt with the same in an appropriate manner by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which has been denied in the facts of the instant case. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 20 of the Act it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have recorded a specific finding regarding the limitation within which the claim petition had been presented before the Prescribed Authority which has not been done in this case. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act clearly stipulates that every such application shall be presented within 6 months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount becomes payable : Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of 6 months when the applicant specifies the authority that he had suffficient cause for not making the application within that period. (4). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the sufficient cause has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of the each particular case there being no hard and fast rule to determine the same. (4). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the sufficient cause has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of the each particular case there being no hard and fast rule to determine the same. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.12.1987 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners since the Presiding Officer was on leave on that day and consequently the petitioners had no notice of subsequent proceedings or regarding fixing of subsequent dates of hearing hence due to circumstances beyond their control the petitioners were not able to appear before the Prescribed Authority either on 28-12-87 or on the subsequent dates. It is pertinent to mention that when Award was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 19.01.1988 against the petitioner vide Annex-P/3 the petitioners could not present themselves before the Authority. This fact is fully borne out from the impugned Award referred to above. It has been next contended by Shri Vyas on behalf of the petitioners that the revised Notification is dated 17-4-87 which came in force with effect from 1st March 1987. This fact is clearly apparent to this court from Ground No. 5 of this writ petition wherein the petitioners have specifically dealt with this question that the aforesaid notification was applicable only for workers of general nature while the Members of the Union/Claimants as per Schedule- A were working under RLEGP/NREP Schemes and for the said workers the effective date for entitlement of the revised minimum wages was 26th May 1988 and at that time they were not under employment of the petitioners. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the notification dated 17.2.87 was applicable for 3 workers and did not cover the other 4 workers/claimants who were covered by the regular notification dated 17.2.87 which came in force from 1.3.87 as referred to above. (5). It is contended by Shri Mathur, learned counsel , for Respondents-claimants that perusal of order-sheet dated 25th March 1988 clearly reveals that the Prescribed Authority had decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants by decreeing the claim in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs. (5). It is contended by Shri Mathur, learned counsel , for Respondents-claimants that perusal of order-sheet dated 25th March 1988 clearly reveals that the Prescribed Authority had decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants by decreeing the claim in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs. 10,962/- for non-compliance of the order dated 19.01.1988 by the petitioners which fact was fully within the know ledge of the petitioners and yet they preferred to remain silent on the issue till the filing of this writ petition in this Court i.e. in 1993 and that in any case there was no reason for the petitioners to have remained silent for such a long time. This contention has been controverted by Shri Vyas learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that having moved the application before the Prescribed Authority dated 10.12.1987 wherein request was made not only for filing of the reply to the claim petition as well as the summoning of the record and for supply of the copy of the claim petition, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have atleast issued notice to the respondents but the Prescribed Authority had ignored the same for gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the law. This fact is borne out from para 9 of the writ petition wherein the petitioners have explained the delay which had occurred on the ground of circumstances beyond their control, hence in any case no malafide can be attributed to the petitioners for not having moved this court within time. (6). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the rival claims and contentions and also on perusal of the relevant documents placed on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned Award dated 19.1.88 (Annex-P/3) being an ex-parte Award deserves to be quashed and the same is accordingly set aside and the matter is accordingly remanded back to the prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act to deal with the matter afresh and decide the claim of the effected workmen by giving them full opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claim in accordance with law. The matter shall be decided expeditiously by the Prescribed Authority and in any case not later than 3 months. The matter shall be decided expeditiously by the Prescribed Authority and in any case not later than 3 months. The parties are at liberty to obtain the certified copy of this order and the claimants are at liberty to move to the Prescribed within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. (7). The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.