H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C. B. Dastoor for the petitioner. ( 2 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Dastoor states that he is prepared to deposit the amount as directed by the Minimum Wages Authority provided that Review Application may be decided by Minimum Wages Authority on merits. He is also ready to pay the cost. Notice which has been issued by the Minimum Wages Authority has not been received by the petitioner. Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr. Dastoor and no decision is relied by him. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. Umiya Stone Industry, Chhogamda, Sabarkantha District considered as non-applicant. The application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was filed by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central-I) on 18. 9. 2003 before the Minimum Wages Authority. The above claim was for the payment of wages less than the minimum rates of wages fixed by Government payable by the non-applicant, means, petitioner to 11 workers at his establishment - Stone Mining and crushing in Dhansura, Sabarkantha District. The hearing was fixed on 4. 9. 2003, 25. 9. 2003 and finally on 22. 10. 2003. The applicant was present on the said hearing but, petitioner was not present in spite of the fact that notices issued by the authority were served on him by RPAD post. Therefore, the applicant requested the authority that the petitioner is avoiding appearance and requested to proceed ex-parte. The authority has considered the request and under Rule 29 (2) decided to proceed ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the authority. The inspection report dated 22. 6. 2003 was considered by the authority, where advised to pay difference of wages to concerned workman, but petitioner failed to make payments to workmen and petitioner remained absent before authority. The petitioner has also not replied to the notice and not attended the hearing fixed by the authority and according to authority, it amounts to exploiting the poor workers by evading even payment of statutory minimum wages to them. The documents Inspection Note, Inspection Report, Statement of Applicant produced on record by inspector were relied by the authority and ultimately, by order dated 28. 12. 2003, the Minimum Wages Authority granted total amount with 10 times compensation of Rs. 3,27,470. The documents Inspection Note, Inspection Report, Statement of Applicant produced on record by inspector were relied by the authority and ultimately, by order dated 28. 12. 2003, the Minimum Wages Authority granted total amount with 10 times compensation of Rs. 3,27,470. 44 paisa under the provision of Section 20 (3) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thereafter, the recovery certificate was issued by Minimum Wages Authority (Central ). The aforesaid certificate issued was under Section 20 (5) of Minimum Wages Act on 2. 2. 2007. The application was made by petitioner to the authority on 19. 06. 2007 for setting aside ex-parte order and also to set aside the order dated 2. 4. 2007. The authority has considered the application filed by petitioner and considered the record of the proceedings on 11/13. 8. 2003, claim applications were filed before the authority. The authority issued notice on 25. 8. 2003 by RPAD fixing the hearing on 4. 9. 2003. The acknowledgment slip duly by petitioner on 29. 8. 2003 is available in file. Thereafter, again, the matter was adjourned and hearing was fixed on 25. 9. 2003 and finally, on 2. 10. 2003. The authority communicated the ex-parte order dated 28. 10. 2003 by RPAD the receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 7. 11. 2003. Acknowledgment slip is also available in file. Therefore, the authority has considered that petitioner remained absent though notices issued by the authority were served and the ex-parte order was also served on 7. 11. 2003. The application made by the petitioner after a period of more than 3 years was rejected as per Sub Rule 4 of Rule 29 of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950. Under Sub Rule (2) or Sub Rule (3) of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, the order passed by the authority can be re-opened only within one month from the date of the said order. Therefore, considering the application made by petitioner after a period of 3 and 1/2 years, the authority has observed that the said application is time barred and it cannot be re-opened and accordingly rejected the same. Before that and after ex parte order, one reminder letter dated 09. 02. 2004 was served to the petitioner to deposit the amounts as ordered within 7 days. Moreover, after receipt of recovery application dated 23. 09. Before that and after ex parte order, one reminder letter dated 09. 02. 2004 was served to the petitioner to deposit the amounts as ordered within 7 days. Moreover, after receipt of recovery application dated 23. 09. 2006 from the authority and before issuing recovery certificate to the District Collector by authority letter dated 27. 11. 2006. ( 4 ) THE relevant provision of Section 20 (1) to (7) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is quoted as under: 20. Claims.- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint [any Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation or any Officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any] other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages [or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under Section 14], to employees employed or paid in that area. (2) [where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1)], the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under Sub-section (3): provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages [or other amount] became payable: provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. [ (3) When any application under Sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct- i. in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess; ii. in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees, and the Authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application. ] (4) If the authority hearing any application under this section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious, it may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be paid to the employer by the person presenting the application. (5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered-a. if the authority is a Magistrate, by the Authority as if it were a fine imposed by the Authority as a Magistrate, or b. if the Authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate to whom the Authority makes application in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate. (6) Every direction of the Authority under this section shall be final. (7) Every Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents, and every such Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898 ). ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid back ground, now, learned advocate Mr. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid back ground, now, learned advocate Mr. Dastoor made a tempting submission as if that employer is willing to pay the amount to the concerned employee. The first submission is that petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount, but not prepared to pay to the concerned workman. This submission of Mr. Dastoor cannot be accepted because the bona fide of the petitioner is doubtful. Even after four years of passing of the ex-parte order and rejection of the review application, learned advocate is not prepared to make a statement that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment but, what he states that the petitioner will deposit the amount before this Court. Such type of tempting submission has no effect to the conscience of this Court. On the contrary, this Court is considered little harsh that once the order is passed in the review, not re-open and after four years, what the petitioner states that he is prepared to deposit the amount as if that petitioner is showing grace or sympathy towards the employees. When workman s legal right has been crystallized by authority and authority is entitled to recover said amount as a matter of statutory right and obligation, then, such submission of Mr. Dastoor cannot be entertained. This is nothing but to avoid the real implementation of order passed by authority by the petitioner. 5. 1 The petitioner not made any submission that workmen are not entitled for said amounts or whatever wages paid was according to Minimum Wages Act. But merely raising technical contentions raised by petitioner to avoid payments. So on merits, no submissions made to justify bona fide of petitioner. The enforcement officer personally visited place of working and examined pay register found less wages paid to the workmen. That evidence, report and record was considered by authority. Not disputed by petitioner in his submissions. The reasonable opportunity given not availed by petitioner. The application submitted by petitioner 19. 06. 2007 against order dated 28. 10. 2003. The said application filed after three and half years. The delay not explained properly by petitioner. The delay and latches cannot be condoned by judicial generosity and with sympathetic approach. If application is not filed in prescribed time then delay must have to shown sufficient cause and compelling circumstances. But petitioner not able to satisfy authority. 10. 2003. The said application filed after three and half years. The delay not explained properly by petitioner. The delay and latches cannot be condoned by judicial generosity and with sympathetic approach. If application is not filed in prescribed time then delay must have to shown sufficient cause and compelling circumstances. But petitioner not able to satisfy authority. The delay occurred by petitioner due to avoiding implementation of order. Such application for review filed on 19. 06. 2007 after receiving recovery order from authority. So long petitioner remained silent carelessness and deliberately not approached authority in time, though ex parte order dated 28. 10. 2003 received by petitioner. In such circumstances, the delay rightly not condoned and rightly rejected. (See AIR 1967 SC 993 , AIR 1976 SC 2617 , 2007 (2) Scale 325 , AIR 1998 SC 2276 , 1998 (1) GCD 237 , 2006 (7) SCC 508 , 2006 SCC (L and S) 791, 2006 (2) GLH 472 , 2006 (3) GLH 195 , 2007 (2) SCC 322 , 2007 Lab IC 382, 2007 (1) GCD 560 , 2007 AIR SCW 1487, 2007 SCC (L and S) 500 and 2007 (6) Scale 159 ). 5. 2 The second submission is that the petitioner is prepared to pay the cost after more than 3 and 1/2 years. Where is the question of paying any cost and for what ? The industry which is not able to pay minimum wages, then that industry should not be allowed to run but, it should be closed down immediately. When industry is not able to make payment to workman according to minimum wages, then, it amounts to adversely affecting the right to life including livelihood. Said request of cost against right to livelihood cannot be considered to be good ground to consider the case of petitioner. 5. 3 The third submission is that notice issued by the Minimum Wages Authority is not received by petitioner. In such circumstances, whether this Court has to believe the petitioner and his advocate, or this Court has to believe the record of the authority. The record indicates that notices were served to the petitioner and acknowledgment slip is already on the file. ( 6 ) THE Apex Court has considered this aspect in case of State of Maharashtra v. RSN reported in The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in Para. The record indicates that notices were served to the petitioner and acknowledgment slip is already on the file. ( 6 ) THE Apex Court has considered this aspect in case of State of Maharashtra v. RSN reported in The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in Para. 3 to 7 are quoted as under: 3. Kotwal, J. put it even more explicitly and said: at one stage it was unequivocally submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents in no uncertain terms that even in this case notwithstanding there being no accusation against the Law Minister as such if the court feels that in the nature of things a bias in favour of the respondent and against a complainant would be manifestly inherent, apparent and implied in the mind of the Law Minister, then in that event, he would not be entitled to consider complainant s application and on the equal footing even the other Ministers may not be qualified to do so and the learned Counsel further expressly submitted that in such an event, it would be only the Governor, who on his own, independently, will be entitled to consider that question. " 4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A. K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submission made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of Judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian AIR 1926 PC 136 ). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian AIR 1926 PC 136 ). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still, fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati AIR 1917 PC 30 ). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment. 4-A. In R. v. Mellor (1858) 7 Cox CC 454 Martin B was reported to have said : "we must consider the statement of the learned judge as absolute verity and we ought to take. his statement precisely as a record and act on it in the same manner as on a record of Court which of itself implies an absolute verity. 5. In King. Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose (1924) 28 Cal WN 170 : AIR 1924 Cal 257 (FB), Page, J. said. . . . his statement precisely as a record and act on it in the same manner as on a record of Court which of itself implies an absolute verity. 5. In King. Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose (1924) 28 Cal WN 170 : AIR 1924 Cal 257 (FB), Page, J. said. . . . these proceedings emphasise the importance of rigidly maintaining the rule that a statement by a learned Judge as to what took place during the course of a trial before him is final and decisive; it is not to be criticised or circumvented; much less is it to be exposed to animad version. 6. In Sarat Chandra v. Bibhabati Debi (1921) 34 Cal LJ 302 : AIR 1921 Cal 584, Sir Asutosh Mookherjee explained what had to be done: it is plain that in cases of this character where a litigant feels aggrieved by the statement in a judgment that an admission has been made, the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever practicable, is to apply to the Judge, without delay and ask for rectification or review of the judgment. ( 7 ) SO the Judges record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge, himself, but nowhere else. 7. Similar aspect is examined by the Apex Court in case of DS v. State of Punjab The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in Para. 13 is quoted as under: 13. The final submission of Shri Ramamurthi was that several other questions were raised in the writ petition before the High Court but they were not considered. We attach no significance to this submission. It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal etc. , but, later, confine themselves, in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds, obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable, No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered. If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the Court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior courts is not to be. If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the Court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior courts is not to be. wasted in enquiring into the question whether a certain ground to which no reference is found, in, the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before that court or not? 7. 1 If we consider the sequence of event then it was known to the petitioner on 22. 06. 2003 when enforcement officer had visited site, that minimum wages is 56-44 and petitioner is paying 40/ -. Then why immediately said amount not paid to workers. After submitting report notice was served by enforcement officer even no payments made. After ex parte order according to petitioner personally met to the authority then any immediately Review Application not filed in the year of 2003 and waited for 4 years. The Review Application filed after receiving recovery order dated 02. 02. 2007. Till date order of authority not challenged by the petitioner. In the petition, no reasons or details given why Review Application filed after 4 years. No explanation given by the petitioner in the petition. In short, intention of the petitioner to avoid payments by taking shelter of legal proceedings. The Minimum Wages Act is beneficiary legislation, its strict compliance is must, otherwise indirectly exploitation amounts to permissible. That is contrary to object of Act 1948. So the conduct and attitude of petitioner is as such that he is not entitled sympathetic approach and discretionary relief from this Court. It was not case of petitioner that he was paying 56-44 to workers. Means minimum wages not paid and not attended hearing which justify 10 times compensation to be paid to the workers and authority in such circumstances rightly granted 10 times compensation in favour of workers. For that also, no error committed by authority which require to interfere while exercising power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. There is no jurisdictional error committed by authority. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court, the record of the authority is considered to be conclusive. For that also, no error committed by authority which require to interfere while exercising power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. There is no jurisdictional error committed by authority. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court, the record of the authority is considered to be conclusive. Mere submission of lawyer and affidavit of petitioner cannot be believed and, therefore, according to my opinion, the authority has rightly decided the matter ex-parte and rightly rejected the review application filed by petitioner. For that, authority has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. A poor employee or workman was not able to receive minimum wages which is guaranteed by the statutory provisions and enforcement officer who visited is found to be correct and accordingly, the order has been passed by the authority. Therefore, request made by learned advocate Mr. Dastoor subsequently to permit him to withdraw the present petition is also rejected only on the ground that such kind of afterthought request should not have to be entertained by this Court which ultimately results in to the fact that the matter remains undecided which can be used by the petitioner in any other manner for not implementing the order passed by the authority. Therefore, even that request is also rejected by this Court. ( 9 ) THE Minimum Wages Authority has not committed any error and finding given by authority based on records and such findings cannot be considered to be baseless and perverse. Therefore, no necessary to interfere in such order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no substance in the present petition. Present petition is dismissed.