A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) AN employer-Eicher Motors, has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, challenging the main order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, dated january 13, 2001 (Annexure P5) and yet another order passed by the same authority on may 19, 2001 (Annexure P7 ). Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They need mention infra, in brief. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. l, an employee, working with the petitioner company filed an application under Section 20 (2) and (3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with m. P. Minimum Wages Fixation Adhiniyam, 1962 before the competent authority out of which this writ petition arises. In the said application, the respondent No. 1 claimed payment of minimum wage, overtime wage etc. for the work done by him during the period April 1, 1999 to March 30, 2000. The petitioner was non-applicant in the said application before the competent authority. They were duly served with the said application, but they did not choose to contest the application and remained ex-parte. The competent authority had, thus, no option but to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 then led evidence of himself and supported the statement by filing documents which were exhibited as Exhibits PI to P29 and prayed for the relief claimed in the application. ( 3 ) BY order dated January 22, 2001 (Annexure P5), the competent authority (Labour Court, Indore) allowed the application made by the respondent No. 1 and awarded a sum of Rs. 47,916. 00 as an amount payable to the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner. The direction was given to make the payment within a period of thirty days. ( 4 ) THE petitioner then, filed an application before the competent authority (Annexure P6) for setting aside the ex-parte order dated January 13, 2001. According to the petitioner, there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order passed against them by the competent authority. It was contended that several cases pending in the said Court were transferred to Peethampur labour Court, but this case was not transferred as a result of which the petitioner was slightly misled which resulted in not attending the Court on the dates mentioned. The competent authority dismissed the application and refused to set aside the ex-parte order. It was contended that several cases pending in the said Court were transferred to Peethampur labour Court, but this case was not transferred as a result of which the petitioner was slightly misled which resulted in not attending the Court on the dates mentioned. The competent authority dismissed the application and refused to set aside the ex-parte order. The learned authority observed in paragraph 4 that petitioner was served with the notice as back as on september 25, 2000 and they were placed ex-parte on October 10, 2000, whereas, the final order was passed on January 13, 2001. It was also held that since the notice was issued from the Indore Labour Court, there was no question of any misleading to the petitioner because this case was not sent to peethampur Labour Court nor it was heard by the said Court. It was held that when petitioner received notice from the Labour court, Indore, then they ought to have appeared and defended the matter before the labour Court Indore and nowhere. It is with this finding the competent authority found that the cause shown by the petitioner does not make out any sufficient cause so as to entitle the Court to set aside the ex-parte order. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, resulting in affirming the ex-parte award passed by the competent authority on january 13, 2001 (Annexure P5 ). It is against these two orders, the petitioner has come to this court in writ under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 5 ) HEARD Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri S. S. Samvatsar, learned counsel for petitioner on the question of admission. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned two orders and the entire record, I find no substance in the writ. ( 7 ) THE question, whether there is sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order is essentially a question of fact. It is for the authority concerned, before whom the application is made to decide whether cause shown by the applicant (petitioner herein) is a sufficient cause for the purpose of setting aside the ex- parte order. ( 7 ) THE question, whether there is sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order is essentially a question of fact. It is for the authority concerned, before whom the application is made to decide whether cause shown by the applicant (petitioner herein) is a sufficient cause for the purpose of setting aside the ex- parte order. Once, the cause is considered and finding is returned, it becomes the question of fact and the writ court in exercise of its powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be competent to enter into the field of question of fact and upturn such finding. It is indeed foreign to the jurisdiction of the writ Court, as it does not involve' any question of jurisdiction. It is much more so, when a finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the facts stated by the parties. ( 8 ) EVEN then and apart from the legal questions, I have perused the cause shown by the petitioner for setting aside the ex- parte order. I am also of the view that the finding recorded by the competent authority while rejecting the application for setting aside the ex-parte order, is just, reasonable and proper. It is not in dispute that the summons for petitioner's appearance before the competent authority in the main case were served on September 25, 2000. The summons clearly endorsed the seal of the petitioner company. It was, therefore, admittedly served on the petitioner asking them to appear before the Labour Court, Indore on October 10, 2000. The petitioners were placed ex-parte on October 10, 2000 because they did not appear. Ultimately the final order was passed on January 22, 2001. ( 9 ) IT clearly appears, that it is only when the final award was passed on January 22, 2001 the petitioner woke up and filed the application for setting aside of the ex-parte order. The ground was, that all cases which were pending in Indore Labour Court having been transferred to Peethampur, the petitioner was under the impression that this case was also transferred. This reasoning was rightly rejected by the labour Court on the ground that there was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to presume that this particular case is also transferred to Peethampur Labour Court. This reasoning was rightly rejected by the labour Court on the ground that there was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to presume that this particular case is also transferred to Peethampur Labour Court. It was absolutely no ground made out for setting aside of an ex-parte order which in reality did not exist. Since the original summons was sent from Indore Labour Court, the petitioner's duty was to appear before the Labour Court, indore, on the date mentioned in the summons and then should have contested the matter. They did not appear at all, despite service. ( 10 ) THIS is not a case of non service. This is also not a case of service with some irregularity. If is a clear case where the petitioner was served and they did not choose to appear when called upon to do so. The courts cannot wait for the litigant if he chooses not to turn up for the date. In my opinion, therefore, apart from the fact that this Court in exercise of a very limited jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India may not examine issue of fact, even then this Court does not find any ground to upturn the finding recorded by the competent authority when it held that there was no sufficient cause. I concur with the finding and accordingly affirm it. ( 11 ) SO far as the challenge to main order passed by the competent authority on January 13, 2001 (Annexure P5) is concerned, I find no illegality in the said order. It was not in dispute that respondent was an employee, working with the petitioner. He filed an application setting out the details in the application. He filed documents from Annexure P1 to P29. He entered in witness box and led evidence in support of his application. In the absence of any rebuttal, the authority was perfectly justified in accepting the application of the respondent and accordingly no flaw can be noticed in the approach of the authority. It is not a case where respondent No. 1 failed to lead evidence. But it is a clear case where respondent did lead evidence and proved his case. ( 12 ) THE aforesaid discussion is more than sufficient for dismissal of this writ in limine. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. .