JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Hathi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Iyer, learned advocate for the respondents. 2. In this group of petitions, the petitioner has challenged 21 separate but similar orders dated 30.10.2013, passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara, in Miscellaneous (Delay Condonation) Application Nos. 44/09 to 64/09, whereby the learned Labour Court, for the reasons recorded in the orders dated 30.10.2013, rejected the above mentioned Miscellaneous Applications, whereby present petitioner had prayed that Delay caused in filing Restoration Applications seeking restoration of the Recovery Application Nos. 383 to 387 of 2005, 389 to 396 of 2005 and 399 to 406 of 2005 (which came to be decided by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 05.03.2009), may be condoned. 2.1 In this group of petitions, the petitioner has also challenged the common order dated 05.03.2009 passed by the learned Labour Court in Recovery Application Nos. 383 to 387 of 2005, 389 to 396 of 2005 and 399 to 406 of 2005. 3. So as to consider and appreciate the relief prayed for by the petitioner and the contentions raised to support and justify the request made in present petitions, it is necessary and relevant to take into account the factual backdrop. 4. The factual backdrop, which has emerged from the record of the petition, the orders passed by the learned Labour Court and the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents gives out that: the workmen, who are respondents in this group of petition, were at the relevant time working with the petitioner as its employees. 4.1 The respondents-workmen claimed that the wages paid to them were paid at the rate which was less than prescribed minimum wage. The respondents claimed that the State Government had notified minimum wages applicable to the establishments such as the petitioners, and that therefore, the petitioner was under statutory obligation to pay wages to its employees at the rates prescribed under the provisions of the Minimum wages Act, however, the wages were not paid according to applicable rate and that therefore, the workmen had raised claim for payment of wages as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act. 4.2 The respondents-claimants further claimed that the petitioner and its management were annoyed because of the demand by workmen for payment of wages according to the rates prescribed under notification and that therefore, their services came to be terminated by an oral order. 4.3 The respondents also claimed that so far as the dispute with regard to alleged termination by oral order with effect from 09.05.2005 is concerned, the workmen had instituted separate proceedings by way of Complaint No. 6/06. The proceedings of the said complaint came to be decided by separate order dated 27.01.2009 and separate litigation with regard to the said complaint and the award passed in the complaint is going on between the respondents-claimants and present petitioner. 4.4 The workmen claimed in the Miscellaneous Application and the restoration application that so far as the said proceedings are concerned, they have arisen from the claim of the workmen that wages should have been paid in accordance with notification issued by the competent authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. For such claim, the workmen had instituted proceedings by filing above mentioned Recovery Applications by invoking provision under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4.5 During the proceedings of said Recovery Application Nos. 383 to 387 of 2005, 389 to 396 of 2005 and 399 to 406 of 2005, the petitioner-employer had filed appearance through advocate and had filed its reply opposing the recovery applications. 4.6 After the written-statement was filed by the petitioner-employer, workmen had submitted an application requesting the learned Labour Court to pass order directing the petitioner-employer to place on record the pay register, original attendance register and vouchers under which payment of salary were made for relevant period. 4.7 From the observations made in Paragraph No. 4 of the order dated 05.03.2009, it appears that the said application was accepted and granted by the learned Labour Court and the Court directed the petitioner-employer to place on record the documents asked for by the workmen. 4.8 It appears that despite such order was passed, the employer did not place the documents on record. 4.9 Subsequently, one of the applicants was examined as witness of the claimants/workmen and his deposition was recorded at Exh. 8. 4.8 It appears that despite such order was passed, the employer did not place the documents on record. 4.9 Subsequently, one of the applicants was examined as witness of the claimants/workmen and his deposition was recorded at Exh. 8. 4.10 The petitioner-employer did not remain present to conduct cross-examination of the said witness, and therefore, the learned Labour Court closed the stage of cross-examination of the witness by order below Exh. 9. 4.11 Thereafter, the claimants/workmen declared that they did not intend to examine any other witness. 4.12 After such declaration, the petitioner-employer did not come forward with any witness. 4.13 Since any witness was not examined on behalf of the petitioner-employer and since the petitioner-employer did not place on record any evidence, either documentary or oral, the learned Labour Court passed order and closed the stage of oral evidence of the petitioner-employer and the learned Court placed the matters for hearing of the arguments. 4.14 The learned Labour Court heard the learned advocate for the claimants-workers and on account of absence of the employer, the learned Court took into account the written-statement filed by the petitioner-employer. 4.15 The learned Labour Court also took into account the uncontroverted evidence placed on record by the claimants-workmen inasmuch as workmen's evidence was not controverted by the petitioner-employer in any manner whatsoever, much less by placing on record any documentary evidence or by examining any witness. 4.16 In this way, the proceedings which came to be instituted in July, 2005 by the workmen came to be finally decided in March, 2009 and during the said period, the petitioner-employer, after filing its written statement (reply) did not remain present before the learned Labour Court and neglected/avoided the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. 4.17 After considering the material available on record, the learned Labour Court passed common order dated 05.03.2009 and allowed the Recovery Application Nos. 383 to 387 of 2005, 389 to 396 of 2005 and 399 to 406 of 2005, and directed the petitioner-employer to pay the amount mentioned in the order (difference between prescribed minimum wages and wages paid by the petitioner-employer) within 30 days from the date of the order and also to pay Rs. 500/- towards cost. 4.18 The said order dated 05.03.2009 was served to the petitioner-employer on 14.03.2009. 500/- towards cost. 4.18 The said order dated 05.03.2009 was served to the petitioner-employer on 14.03.2009. 4.19 The fact that the order was served to the petitioner-employer on 14.03.2009 is not in dispute inasmuch when the petitioner-employer approached the learned Labour Court with Miscellaneous Applications seeking restoration of the Recovery Applications in Miscellaneous Applications, the petitioner-employer accepted and admitted that the said order dated 05.03.2009 was received by its Watchman and was handed over by the Watchman in the office on 14.03.2009. 4.20 Though the notices issued by learned Labour Court in pursuance of the Recovery Certificates were duly served to the petitioner-employer, it did not remain present before the learned Labour Court after filing its written-statement. 4.21 Thereafter, when the impugned order dated 05.03.2009 came to be served to the petitioner on 14.03.2009, for almost 2 months, the petitioner-employer did not take any action in connection with the said common order dated 05.03.2009. 4.22 For almost 2 months, the petitioner-employer conveniently, consciously and willfully neglected the common order dated 05.03.2009 and remained idle without taking any action in connection with the said order dated 05.03.2009. 4.23 Therefore, the workmen, through their Union, filed an application under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with a request to the learned Labour Court to issue recovery certificates so that common order dated 05.03.2009 can be executed. 4.24 Even thereafter, the petitioner did not take any action with reference to the above mentioned order dated 05.03.2009. 4.25 It was after more than 2 months that the petitioner-employer filed Miscellaneous Application Nos. 44 of 2009 to 64 of 2009 on or around 22.02.2009 and prayed that Recovery Application Nos. 383 to 387 of 2005, 389 to 396 of 2005 and 399 to 406 of 2005, which came to be decided by the learned Labour Court vide common order dated 05.03.2009 may be restored. 4.26 In view of the fact that more than 2 months delay was caused in filing Miscellaneous Applications seeking restoration of the Recovery Applications, the petitioner-employer also filed Miscellaneous Application Nos. 44 of 09 to 64 of 09 and prayed that delay caused in filing restorations applications may be condoned. 4.27 Since the delay was not condoned, the restoration applications were not duly registered/ numbered by the Registry of the learned Labour Court (according to the claim of the learned advocate for the petitioner-employer). 44 of 09 to 64 of 09 and prayed that delay caused in filing restorations applications may be condoned. 4.27 Since the delay was not condoned, the restoration applications were not duly registered/ numbered by the Registry of the learned Labour Court (according to the claim of the learned advocate for the petitioner-employer). 4.28 In the delay application filed by it, the petitioner-employer admitted that common order dated 05.03.2009 was served on 14.03.2009, which was accepted by the Watchman and he had given the same in the office. 4.29 It was further claimed that at that time examination was going on in the school and the staff of the school was engaged in the examination process, therefore, the notice remained unattended and the delay in filing restoration application of recovery applications occurred. 4.30 The explanation by the petitioner-employer was opposed by the workmen stating that the explanation offered by the petitioner-employer was factually not correct since the result of the said examination was declared in the first week of May, 2009. 4.31 The learned Labour Court considered the said delay condonation applications and the objections filed by the workmen. 4.32 After examining the material on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion and recorded specific finding that despite 28 adjournments no one attended the hearing of recovery application. The learned Court also recorded that the reason mentioned by the petitioner-employer was incorrect and was not satisfactory and that the petitioner-employer had not placed on record correct and complete facts and material. 4.33 The learned Labour Court also recorded the finding that though the employer had claimed that the order dated 05.03.2009 was served only on 14.03.2009, however, on examining the report and copy of the order, it emerged that the said copy of the order was forwarded to the petitioner-employer by the Union under its covering letter and it was not one which was served by the office of the Court. 4.34 The learned Labour Court recorded that the office of the Court had served the order to the petitioner-employer by registered post and that before passing the order fresh intimation was served to the petitioner-employer in response to which Manager Satyendra Shah had entered appearance along with the authority letter. 4.34 The learned Labour Court recorded that the office of the Court had served the order to the petitioner-employer by registered post and that before passing the order fresh intimation was served to the petitioner-employer in response to which Manager Satyendra Shah had entered appearance along with the authority letter. 4.35 After taking into account the relevant material on record, the learned Labour Court did not find either truth or justification in the explanation and reasons mentioned by the petitioner to support its request to condone delay of more than 2 months and vide separate, but similar orders dated 30.10.2013, the learned Labour Court rejected the Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 09 to 64 of 09 seeking restoration of the recovery application. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 30.10.2013 rejecting above mentioned miscellaneous Applications, the petitioner-employer filed present petitions. 6. Again while challenging the order dated 30.10.2013 in present group of petitions, the petitioner-employer caused delay of almost 2 years. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 30.10.2013 is challenged by the petitioner-employer by filing writ petitions in February, 2015 i.e. after two years. 7. Mr. Hathi, learned advocate for the petitioner-employer submitted that the order passed by the learned Labour Court in Recovery Applications is bad in law. He further submitted that the proceeding arising from the order passed in Complaint No. 6/06 was pending and it was separately prosecuted before the learned Labour Court. He also submitted that the employer has not got opportunity to deal with the allegations by the workmen justifying their claim for Minimum Wages for the periods in question. He claimed that the petitioner did not get opportunity to establish that the claimant-workmen were engaged on part time basis, and that therefore, they were not entitled for wages at prescribed minimum rate for entire working day. He further submitted that the petitioner-employer may be granted an opportunity to defend the recovery applications on merits. He also submitted that in the interest of justice, the petitioner may be granted opportunity to defend recovery applications on merits. 8. Mr. Iyer, learned advocate for the respondent-workmen opposed the petitions and submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had intentionally neglected the proceedings before the learned Labour Court at initial stage i.e. when the recovery applications were being adjudicated by the learned Labour Court. 8. Mr. Iyer, learned advocate for the respondent-workmen opposed the petitions and submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had intentionally neglected the proceedings before the learned Labour Court at initial stage i.e. when the recovery applications were being adjudicated by the learned Labour Court. He also submitted that the petitioner-employer failed to offer satisfactory explanation as to the cause of delay. He submitted that the details mentioned in the delay condonation application by way of its explanation for delay is incorrect. He submitted that merely because examination process had commenced, it does not mean that other necessary activities and obligations should not be discharged. Even otherwise, the examination in the school were concluded and even results were declared in first week of May, 2009. 9. I have considered the submissions and the material on record and the impugned orders. 10. The above mentioned details demonstrate that the delay is caused by the petitioner-employer at every stage and its conduct demonstrates its neglect towards the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, indicate and reflect ill-intention of petitioner-employer viz. to delay the proceedings and final result. 10.1 According to learned advocate for the respondent-workmen, the intention of the petitioner-employer was to delay the proceedings, as far as possible, and thereby, to frustrate the workmen and to bring them down on their knee so that it can dictate its own terms for putting an end to the proceedings. 11. The learned labour Court accepted the objections by the opponent-workman and did not believe the reasons and explanation offered by the petitioner-employer and rejected the Miscellaneous (Condonation of Delay) Application vide order dated 30.10.2013. 11.1 When the facts mentioned above are examined, it emerges that for considerable long time period, the petitioner-employer allegedly did not pay wages to the employees at the rates prescribed under Minimum Wages Act. 11.2 Thereafter, when the workmen instituted proceedings by filing Recovery Application in July, 2005, the petitioner employer did not attend the proceedings after filing written-statement as a result of which the proceedings prolonged for almost four years and ultimately the Court was compelled to pass final order because the petitioner-employer was not attending the proceedings. 11.3 The final order came to be passed after four years. 12. 11.3 The final order came to be passed after four years. 12. During the span of four years after which the learned Labour Court passed common order dated 05.03.2009, the petitioner-employer neglected the proceedings and did not participate in the proceedings and allowed them to be decided in its absence and then it did not take any action for almost two and half months against the common order dated 05.03.2009 and approached the learned Labour Court with Miscellaneous Application after delay of two and half months. 13. After the final order came to be passed, the petitioner employer again ignored the order passed by the learned Labour Court and until the stage when the workmen, having found that the employer was not complying the order, were compelled to file applications seeking recovery certificates that the petitioner woke up from his slumber after two and half months and filed Miscellaneous Application with a request to condone the delay. 13.1 The said applications came to be filed on or after 22.05.2009. 13.2 The said proceedings i.e. proceedings seeking condonation of delay continued for another four years and final orders came to be passed on 30.10.2013. 14. At that stage also, i.e. even after order dated 30.10.2013, the petitioner-employer did not take any step and after further delay of two years (i.e. after 19.02.2015) it filed present petitions and challenged the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Miscellaneous (Condonation of Delay) Applications. 15. From the above mentioned chronology, dates and events, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner-employer had consciously and willfully neglected the proceedings of Recovery Applications. 15.1 From the manner in which the proceedings of recovery application and subsequent proceedings of Miscellaneous Application proceeded before the learned Labour Court, and were allowed to be decided in its absence, it appears that the employer, with an intention, did not attend the proceedings and intentionally allowed it to be decided ex-parte with the design or idea that it would get the proceedings restored by paying some cost as may be awarded by the Court. 15.2 However, it appears that the learned Labour Court could look through the intention and design of the petitioner-employer from its conduct and also from the details mentioned in the application, and that therefore, by recording details and facts related to the proceedings and the employers conduct, rejected the Miscellaneous Applications. 16. 15.2 However, it appears that the learned Labour Court could look through the intention and design of the petitioner-employer from its conduct and also from the details mentioned in the application, and that therefore, by recording details and facts related to the proceedings and the employers conduct, rejected the Miscellaneous Applications. 16. In this background, in first instance, this Court is not inclined to accept the petitioners contention that the order dated 05.03.2009 passed by the learned Labour Court can be said to be ex-parte order. 16.1 In respect of similar order passed with regard to the proceedings related to the Complaint No. 6/06 when this Court took the view that the order passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be termed as ex-parte order, the said conclusion is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 08.07.2014, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:- "It is, therefore, appropriate for the learned Single Judge to examine the correctness of the Award to pass orders on merits in the Special Civil Application No. 6316 of 2011. We also wish to make it clear that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge as regards the correctness of the order dated 13th January, 2011, in Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2009 is not interfered with. Even while directing the learned Single Judge to consider the Special Civil Application on merits as regards the validity of the Award passed in Complaint No. 6 of 2006 dated 27th January, 2009, we are convinced that the respondent-workmen numbering 16 who are fighting for their rights right from 2005 should be duly compensated by directing the appellant-school to make some monetary payment pending consideration of the main Award by the learned Single Judge." 16.2 In present case, even if it is assumed that the order dated 05.09.2013 should be considered as ex-parte order, then also the fact remains that the petitioner has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as regards its absence before the learned Labour Court while the proceedings of recovery applications were in progress and remained pending for four years. 16.3 It is pertinent that while some excuse is offered for delay of about 2 months caused in filing restoration application, however, even a whisper is not made by the petitioner in its application as to why for four years the petitioner did not attend the proceedings of recovery application which remained pending before the learned Court from 2005 to 2009. 17. During said entire period, the petitioner-employer neglected those proceedings and when it filed the application of Condonation of Delay and restoration, it did not offer any reason or explanation with regard to its absence for 4 years during the proceedings of recovery applications. 18. In the said miscellaneous application, the petitioner did not even make any mention about said period of four years and did not offer any explanation about its absence in the proceedings for four years 18.1 Even before this court in present petition the petitioner has not explained its conduct of neglecting and disregarding the proceedings of recovery applications for four years. 18.2 The said conduct of the petitioner (of neglecting and avoiding the proceedings for four years) and its complete and convenient silence is more eloquent and more than sufficient to convince this Court that it was conscious and intentional decision and action of the petitioner viz. to not participate in the proceedings and to allow the recovery application proceed and decided in its absence and then to get it restored. 19. Even Mr. Hathi, learned advocate for the petitioner fairly submitted that there is nothing on record to explain the absence of the proceedings during the said part of the proceedings and said period of four years. 20. The petitioner has merely come forward with claiming that after the learned Labour Court passed the common order dated 05.03.2009, it could not file Miscellaneous Applications because examination were to commence. Even the said ground, besides being incorrect, was not available after one week of May, 2009, and any explanation for subsequent period was not offered by the employer. 21. If the petitioner had at least acted swiftly and quickly thereafter i.e. after the Court rejected the Miscellaneous Applications, then also some platform to stand on, would have been available to the petitioner. 21.1 The conduct of the petitioner in adopting the tactics to unnecessarily delay the matter is clear and loud. 21. If the petitioner had at least acted swiftly and quickly thereafter i.e. after the Court rejected the Miscellaneous Applications, then also some platform to stand on, would have been available to the petitioner. 21.1 The conduct of the petitioner in adopting the tactics to unnecessarily delay the matter is clear and loud. 21.2 It is abundantly clear that the entire delay, right from the stage when it filed written statement before the learned Labour Court, the employer intentionally and caused delay so that the workmen may be get frustrated and may be compelled to settle the cases and their claims and it can dictate its own terms. 22. Entire span of delay and its conduct and the employers intention become more clear, loud and apparent from the fact that the employer did not take any action for more than two years after the Court passed impugned order in 2013 and it filed these petitions against the impugned order dated 30.10.2013 in 2015/2016. 23. In this view of the matter, this Court is convinced that the orders passed by the learned Labour Court, i.e. order dated 30.10.2013 and order dated 05.03.2009 do not warrant any interference. 24. At this stage, it is relevant and necessary to mention that the workmen were compelled to file recovery applications for different periods (to recover the difference of wages) during which period they were not paid wages at the rates prescribed for minimum wage. 25. It is pertinent that the petitioner-employer did not attend the proceedings and the said proceedings of said recovery applications were also neglected or avoided and the Court was compelled to pass order deciding the said other recovery applications. 25.1 Thereafter, the petitioner had moved applications seeking restoration of the said other recovery applications which were also rejected by the learned Labour Court. 25.2 Against such orders, the petitioner employer had filed a petition (i.e. Special Civil Application No. 3137/2015) which have been decided by this Court vide separate order passed in Special Civil Application No. 3137 of 2015. 26. 25.2 Against such orders, the petitioner employer had filed a petition (i.e. Special Civil Application No. 3137/2015) which have been decided by this Court vide separate order passed in Special Civil Application No. 3137 of 2015. 26. In view of the fact that the Miscellaneous Applications seeking restoration of said other recovery applications were not filed belatedly, the Court accepted the petitioners request in the said Special Civil Application No. 3127 of 2015 and granted opportunity to contest the said other recovery applications by giving an opportunity to the petitioner employer on condition of payment of cost to each claimant. The Court adopted the said course of action in view of the fact the applications seeking restoration of said other recovery applications were filed without delay/unreasonable delay, and to that extent the said other restoration application and said other recovery application stand on different facts than these applications/present petitions. 27. In present case, the restoration applications were filled after delay of two and half months. Accordingly, to the aforesaid extent, these petitions/facts of these petitions stand on different platform and that therefore, in these cases the Court has not followed same course. 28. There is another important reason for not following similar cause of action in present petition (i.e. similar to Special Civil Application No. 3137 of 2015). 28.1 During the hearing of present petition, learned advocate for the employer submitted that opportunity to conduct the subject recovery application on merits may be granted but without any order requiring the employer to pay cost i.e. without condition of payment of cost. 28.2 In view of this Court, such request amounts to throwing salt on the adding injury and, if such request is granted, it would amount to injustice to the workmen who have been prosecuting the recovery applications for their claim of difference of wages at the rate of minimum wages since 2005. 28.3 Therefore, also the Court is not inclined to accept to petitioners request to grant additional/further opportunity, without condition requiring payment cost, when on previous occasion, the petitioner consciously did not avail and intentionally neglected the proceedings. 29. For the reasons recorded above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders dated 30.10.2013 or 05.03.2009. The petitioner has failed to make out any case to interfere with the orders. 30. More so because the petitioner declined to accept the condition for payment of cost. 31. 29. For the reasons recorded above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders dated 30.10.2013 or 05.03.2009. The petitioner has failed to make out any case to interfere with the orders. 30. More so because the petitioner declined to accept the condition for payment of cost. 31. Therefore, these petitions are rejected.