JUDGMENT : PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard finally with consent. This order will govern the disposal of WP No. 4098/2015, 4099/2015 and 4100/2015 since it is jointly submitted by counsel for both the parties that these writ petitions involve same issue on identical fact situation. 2. For convenience, the facts have been noted from WP No. 4098/2015. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the competent authority passed under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 dated 14/10/2014 whereby it has been found that the petitioner had failed to pay the minimum wages to the respondent employees and, therefore, a direction has been issued to deposit the difference of the minimum wages along with the compensation. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order dated 27/2/2015 whereby the petitioner's application for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte order has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the application for setting aside ex-parte order has wrongly been rejected ignoring that the limitation of 30 days was required to be calculated from the date of knowledge of the order and this aspect has been totally ignored. He further submits that while passing the original order the notice was not served upon the petitioner. 5. As against this, learned counsel for respondents submits that repeated notices were sent to the petitioner, but he had refused to accept the notice, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken up and that the 30 days period for setting aside the order in terms of Rule 29 is to be counted from the date of order and not from the date of knowledge. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that on the basis of the report of the Labour Enforcement Officer, after inspection of the premises of the petitioner the proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act since in the report it was disclosed that the petitioner was paying the wages at the rate less than the minimum wages fixed by the government. The competent authority before passing the ex-parte order dated 14/10/2014 had issued repeated notices to the petitioner. The impugned order reflects that the notices were issued to the petitioner on 19/7/2013, 19/8/2013, 20/9/2013, 25/10/2013, 28/11/2013, 24/1/2014, 28/5/2014 and 23/6/2014. The competent authority before passing the ex-parte order dated 14/10/2014 had issued repeated notices to the petitioner. The impugned order reflects that the notices were issued to the petitioner on 19/7/2013, 19/8/2013, 20/9/2013, 25/10/2013, 28/11/2013, 24/1/2014, 28/5/2014 and 23/6/2014. The order further reflects that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice, therefore, the ex-parte proceedings were taken up against the petitioner. 7. Considering the material which was on record, the authority has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed lapse in payment of the minimum wages to the concerned employee, therefore, the difference of wages has been calculated by the competent authority and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to pay the difference of wages along with the compensation amount. 8. So far as the application of the petitioner for restoration of proceedings and setting aside of the ex-parte order is concerned, though the petitioner has raised a plea before this court that the 30 days limitation in terms of the Rule is to be calculated from the date of knowledge, but the application which was filed before the competent authority Annexure P/8 reveals that while applying for the setting aside of the ex-parte order, the petitioner had not even disclosed the date of knowledge. The Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 provides for 30 days limitation for filing an application and as per Sub Rule 4 of Rule 29, the application is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. Even if the petitioner's contention that the 30 days period is to be counted from the date of knowledge is accepted, then also since the date of knowledge has not been disclosed in the application before the competent authority, therefore, no benefit accrues to the petitioner. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act in passing the impugned order and no case for interference is made out. 10. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The signed order be placed in the record of WP No. 4098/2015 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ petitions.