The law of limitation is not an equitable statute and is a statute of repose. The petitioner must act with utmost good faith and make a full disclosure of all relevant facts to explain the delay.

ORDER

1. Sri.Javeed.S, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri.Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Ananya Y.V, for respondent-2, have appeared through video conferencing.

Sri.Shivananda D.S. learned AGA for respondent-1 has appeared in-person.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:-

It is stated that the petitioner was working in M/s.R.S.Nursing Home from June 1994 as Aya till 02.03.2008 with due diligently, honestly and immaculately. But the respondents refused the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 02.03.2008 onwards.

It is averred that during the course of her employment, she was paid lesser wages than the minimum wages fixed to the category post of Aya. When queried, the Officials of Nursing Home used to give verbal assurance of payment. It is said that even after refusal of her employment, they went on giving false assurance but did not pay any amount.

Hence, petitioner filed a claim application before the Labour Commissioner cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Officer, in M.W.A.No.48/2008 with a prayer to direct the Nursing Home - the second respondent to pay the difference amount of Rs. 1,28,648.52/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Eight and fifty two paise only) and also 10 times penalty of Rs. 12,86,485.20 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Five and twenty paise only) in total a sum of Rs.14,15,130.70/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand One hundred and thirty and seventy paise only). It is stated that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay.

The Nursing Home entered appearance and filed objections denying the claim of the petitioner. The Labour Officer - the first respondent - Authority after recording evidence and hearing both the parties dismissed the claim application on the ground of delay.

Under these circumstances, having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Sri.Javeed.S, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the first respondent - Labour Officer - Authority is unsustainable in law and illegal.

Next, he submitted that the petitioner filed the claim application in the year 2008 and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay by narrating the reasons to condone the delay.

A further submission was made that Authority has erroneously proceeded to pass the order and erred in not condoning the delay. It is submitted that the Authority has misdirected itself and refused to condone the delay and rejected the claim petition.

Counsel strenuously urged that the Authority ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the claim petition of the petitioner.

Lastly, he submitted that the order is liable to be quashed by issue of an appropriate writ.

4. Sri.Shivananda, learned AGA justified the order of the Authority.

Next, he submitted that that as per proviso to Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a claim application shall be made within six months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other amount) became payable. But in the present case, the application is filed after 8 years.

A further submission was made that there is an inordinate delay in filing the claim application. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay.

Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner has not made any good grounds to exercise the power under Articles 226 and & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he submitted that petition may be dismissed.

5. Sri.Raghuveer, learned counsel for respondent-2 also justified the order of the Authority.

Next, he submitted that according to the petitioner the minimum wages became payable i.e., w.e.f. 01.04.2000. But the claim application is filed in the year 2008 after lapse of 8 years.

A further submission w