1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order, dated 24-01-2013, passed by the first respondent – the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru, in M.W.M.P.Case No.1 of 2012, and to forbear the first respondent from proceeding in any manner with the application filed by the respondents 2 to 31 claiming minimum wages in the petition filed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondents 2 to 31 filed an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ( for short ‘the Act, 1948’) claiming difference of minimum wages under Sub Section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948. As per the first proviso to sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948 every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other amount) become payable. Whereas, the second proviso to sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948 envisages 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 the said period.

The respondents 2 to 31 alleged that they were not paid minimum wages. Their case is that they approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru on 22-02-2011 seeking for justice. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru conducted joint meetings on 07-03-2011, 26-03-2011 and 04-05-2011. They alleged that due to adamant attitude of the opposite party (the petitioner herein), the matter could not be settled amicably.

Then it appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru advised the respondents 2 to 31 to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal. Accordingly, the respondents 2 to 31 approached the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Authority’) on 01-06-2011 and filed a claim petition vide MW.MP.Case No.1 of 2012. They also filed an application to condone the delay of two years two months. In the petition, the respondents 2 to 31 alleged that the petitioner herein prolonged the issue contending that it will implement the minimum wages, and since there is no response from it, they filed the claim under the Act, 1948. The respondents 2 to 31 further contended that there is no willful delay or negligence on their part in filing the claim application and prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

3. The petitioner herein filed a counter in the said claim petition denying the claim of the respondents 2 to 31. The specific case of the petitioner (herein) is that the respondents 2 to 31 never approached it nor requested as stated by them. The first respondent allowed the condone delay petition, by orders dated 24-01-2013. The first respondent, in its order, observed that the respondents 2 to 31 contended that whenever they approached the management (the petitioner herein) for their legitimate wages, the management prolonged the issue, and that there was no willful laches or negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the claim petition. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.

4. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that when the petitioner has disputed the contention of the respondents 2 to 31 that they approached it, the respondents 2 to 31 ought to have adduced some evidence in support of their case. It is also his submission that though the Authority has discretionary power, the same has to be exercised considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his further submission that no cogent reasons have been assigned by the respondents 2 to 31 to condone the delay. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363).

5. Mrs. P. Bala Ran