The Assistant Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to condone the delay in making the application under Sec.28 (1) of the Act, and the finding of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that there was sufficient cause for the delay was not erroneous.

1. This application in revision under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, an authority appointed under Sec.28 (1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (Act VIII of 1954), entertaining an application under Sec.28 (2) of the same Act by some of the employees of the Imperial Tobacco Co., of India Ltd. for wages due from their employer on account of over-time work, after condoning the delay in making that application. Sub-section (1) of Sec.28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) provides that an application for claim of wages can be made in the manner within such time and to such authority as may be prescribed for a direction under Sub-section (2) of Sec.28 of the Act. Sec. 40 of the Act provides for the powers of the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act and particularly, under Clause (2) (d) to make rule providing for the authority before whom, the time within which and the manner in which the employee or any legal practitioner or authorised agent or an officer of a registered trade union or an Inspecting Officer shall make an application under Sub-section (1) of Sec.28.

The rule made in that respect prescribes that such an application shall be made within six months from the date of which the payment of wages is due. There is a proviso to the relevant Rule 22 in the following terms : "Provided that an application may be admitted after the period of sis months if the applicant satisfied the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period ".

Admittedly, the application in the present case was made after the prescribed period of six months and so the question arose whether the delay made by the applicants should be condoned by the prescribed authority. Under the proviso to Rule 22 (1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Rules, 1955 (hereafter to be referred as the rules), the authority concerned look up that matter and by bis order passed on the 14th February, 1962, and after hearing both the sides and considering the materials that were brought on the record at the instance of both the sides, decided to rule out the objection raised by the employer, the opposite party there and to admit the application for hearing. The Branch Manager of the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. has challenged that order in the present application in revision.

2. There was a preliminary objection raised by the workmen i.e., the opposite party here who filed the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Sec.28 (1) of the Act, against the maintainability of the application under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the impugned order was passed not by a Court, much less a civil Court and not by a Court subordinate to High Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen urged that the authority prescribed under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act is not a Court and is not subordinate to this High Court, in which case Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to challenge the order passed by him. This objection has no merit for two reasons. It is now well settled that any person or authority entrusted with the responsibility of judicial functions to be exercised in a judicial manner, i.e., in accordance with the principles of law and following the procedures laid down by any law, will be taken as a Court. In that sense, although an authority acting under a particular statute may not be termed as a Court and some other authority or some other Court may be referred to in some other context in the same statute, yet such authority entrusted with judicial functions will be deemed to be a Court. See the cases of A. Hasan V/s. Mohammad Shamsuddin, AIR 1951 Pat 140 and Mossamat Dirji V/s. Srimati Goalin, ILR 20 Pat. 373: (AIR 1941 Pat 65 (FB)).

3. The next question is whether t