Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner is an employer and respondent no.3 Shri Mana Ram was working with the petitioner as his truck driver. He submitted an application under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Pali on 26.7.93 inter alia contending that he was not paid wages of Rs. 12,600/-. Notice on that application was duly served upon the petitioner employer and even reply (Annex.2) was filed before the authority not only that he also engaged a counsel to defend his case. Thereafter, issues were framed by the authority on 29.11.1993, then the case was kept for recording evidence of the parties from 18.12.1993 to 20.12.1995 on about 25 different dates. The evidence of the employee was recorded only on 27.12.1995 as per the order sheet (Annex.3) No body was appearing for the petitioner employer before the authority, therefore, on 21.4.1995 fresh notice was ordered to be issued and it was kept on 30.5.1995 and then on 18.7.1995. By that time another presiding officer came, who passed the order of ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner on 18.7.1995 and after recording evidence of the employee on 27.12.1995 the ex-parte decree/order was passed on 3.1.1996 for the sum of Rs. 12,225/- (Annex.4) and lateron notice dated 15.5.1996 (Annex.5) was issued for payment of said amount. (2). It is the case of present petitioner employer that he came to know about the ex-parte order dated 3.1.1996 and notice dt. 15.5.1996 only on 4.10.1996, therefore, when S.D.O. Bali came for recovery of said amount he immediately con- tacted his counsel Shri Bhagirath Chandora on 23.10.1996 and on the same date he applied for certified copy of the ex-parte order dt. 3.1.1996 and on receiving the same, an application was made to set aside the ex- parte order on 7.11.1996. On that application, noticed were ordered to be issued and after hearing the parties his application was rejected by an order dated 20.12.1996 (Annex.7). That order was challenged by way of appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the appellate authority which was also dismissed. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (3). That order was challenged by way of appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the appellate authority which was also dismissed. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (3). Learned Counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner relying upon the Apex Court Judgment in case of Malkiat Singh and another vs. Joginder Singh and others (1) submitted that the authority and the appellate authority both committed grave error in not setting aside the ex-parte decree/order. In para no.11 of the writ petition an averment is made that the petitioner was not in fault and it was his counsel who did not represent his case properly before the authority and did not inform him about the latest position of the case. He therefore, submits that the case on hand is similar to the case of Malkiat Singh (Supra) therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authority as well as by the appellate authority be set aside and the matter be remanded to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. (4). In case of Malkiat Singh (Supra) the appellants (accused) were tried for murder of one Harpal Singh and on conviction, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the trial Court on 1.4.1985. The respondent in that case filed suit only on 16.8.1989 (i.e. after almost four years) before the Civil Court claiming damages from the appellants to the tune of Rs.1 lakh for depriving of the income to the family members which they used to get from deceased Harpal Singh. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement and engaging counsel to defend them in suit. Thereafter, issues were also framed and two witnesses were also examined and cross examined. However, on 18.11.1991 counsel for the appellants pleaded ``no instructions before the Court and as a result of the same the case was proceeded ex-parte and on 8.2.1992 the trial Court passed an ex-parte decree against the appellants. On an enquiry from their counsel the appellants came to know on 6.6.1992 that he had already pleaded no instructions, therefore, the case was decided ex-parte on 8.2.1992. On an enquiry from their counsel the appellants came to know on 6.6.1992 that he had already pleaded no instructions, therefore, the case was decided ex-parte on 8.2.1992. The appellants then immediately engaged another counsel on 10.6.1992 within four months and filed application under Order 1 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 18.11.1991 and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 8.2.1992. It is pertinent to note that while that application was pending adjudication, the appeal filed by the appellants against conviction and sentenced was heard by the Apex Court on 7.3.1995 and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside. Lateron, on 22.1.1996 the trial Court dismissed the application. Against that the appeal filed before the learned Distt. Judge was also dismissed on 18.10.1996 and even the High Court dismissed the revision filed by them in limine on 13.12.1996. Under the circumstances,the appeal was filed by the appellants before the Apex Court. (5). The un-disputed facts before the Apex Court in Malkiat Singhs case (sup- ra) were that the appellant had engaged a counsel to defend them in civil suit who pleaded ``no instructions and the Court without issuing notices to the appellants proceeded ex-parte and passed the ex-parte decree/Judgment. On facts of that case, the Apex Court found that the appellants were neither careless nor negligent in defending the case and admittedly no notice was issued to them after their coun- sel pleaded ``no instructions. On peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held that, ``the appellants cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be said to be at fault and they should not suffer. (6). Now coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that respondent no.3 was working with the petitioner employer as a truck driver was denied back wages for several months which would come to Rs. 12,600/- He, therefore, filed an application before the authority, under the Payment of Wages Act way back in 1993 and notices were duly served upon the petitioner and not only that the reply was also filed and counsel was also engaged. Almost after two years i.e. on 18.7.1995, the authority was compelled to pass the order of ex-parte proceedings in the case as neither the petitioner nor his counsel was remaining present. Almost after two years i.e. on 18.7.1995, the authority was compelled to pass the order of ex-parte proceedings in the case as neither the petitioner nor his counsel was remaining present. Evidence of the employee came to be recorded only on 27.12.1995 and ultimately ex-parte order came to be passed on 3.1.1996. It is no doubt true that in this petition in para 11 at page 8 an averment is made that the petitioner was not at fault and it was his counsel who did not represent his case properly and not informed him about the latest position. It may be stated that when an application (Annex.6) dated 7.11.1996 was filed before the authority this statement was never made that, ``it was because of his counsels negligence the petitioner is made to suffer. In this case the petitioner has not given any notice to his counsel, who failed to either properly represent his case or failed to inform him and no complaint is made to the Bar Council about his such mis-con- duct. It is under these circumstances, if the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not satisfied to set aside the ex-parte decree and the appellate Court also concurred with that view then this Court would not like to interfere with such orders passed by the authority below in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Before parting, I must state that the poor employee, who has been de- nied wages way back in 1993 has not got a penny even after five years. The employer can have the luxury to file litigation so as to deny the due and legitimate amount of his poor employee. In my humble opinion, the above judgment of the Apex Court in Malkiat Singhs case (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. In this case, the authority as well as the appellate authority have assigned cogent and so- und reasons for not setting aside the ex-parte order and judgment. Thus, no error much less, error on law or jurisdictional error is committed by them which may call for interference by this Court under its extra ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqin (2), that even an error on law cannot be corrected by this Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqin (2), that even an error on law cannot be corrected by this Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution. In this case, as stated earlier, no error apparent on the face of the record or error on law or jurisdictional error is committed by the Courts below. (7). In view of the above discussion, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.