The main legal point established in the judgment is that while welfare legislation must be applied liberally, the Authority must satisfy itself with sufficient cause for condoning the delay, based on cogent and legal material on record.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

CM No. 11480/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3807/2021 and CM No. 11479/2021

1. Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 and in the alternative, a writ or a direction to Respondent No.1 to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, after remanding the matter, for consideration afresh.

2. Petition arises out of an order passed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority').

3. As per the case set out in the petition, Petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of construction projects for various entities and in the course of its business, undertook a project for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in 2014. For the said project, thousands of employees were employed and were paid full wages for the period of their employment, which were above the minimum wages as prescribed under the Act.

4. Upon completion of the project and having no requirement to employ all the employees further, Petitioner terminated the contracts of employment of certain employees, as per applicable laws. However, as an afterthought and a retaliation to the termination, approximately 51 employees, represented through Respondent No. 2, filed complaints alleging non-payment of minimum wages as prescribed under the Act as well as non-payment of overtime.

5. Complaints were divided into two sets by the concerned Authority, i.e., MWA No. 179/2018 comprising of 21 employees and MWA No. 180/2018 comprising of 30 employees. Present petition deals with the MWA No. 179/2018.

6. Petitioner, vide its letter dated 25.10.2018, responded to the notice issued by the Authority and raised a preliminary objection that the claims of minimum wages dated back to 2015 and were thus barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 20 (2) of the Act, i.e., six months from the date the claims allegedly became payable.

7. Petitioner also filed a written statement to the claim petition, on merits, denying the non-payment of minimum wages under the provisions of the Act and provided documents to that effect, to the extent they were readily available at their Office at Delhi. In so far as other documents such as attendance registers, etc., were concerned, time was sought by the Petitioner to produce the documents as the same were lying at the registered Office in Mumbai.

8. Hearings were conducted by the Authority on various dates during the year 2019-2020, last one being on 20.01.2020, when the parties were directed to put forth material in support of their claims and the next date of hearing was fixed as 12.03.2020. However, on account of nationwide lockdown due to pandemic COVID-19, an adjournment was sought by the counsel for Respondent No.2 on 12.03.2020.

9. Vide order dated 12.03.2020, Authority listed the matter on 17.04.2020 for arguments, with liberty to the Petitioner to file evidence. However, the matter was never argued thereafter by either party and effective opportunity of hearing was denied to the Petitioner.

10. Mr. J.P. Cama, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, instructed by Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, assails the impugned order on the ground that Respondent No.1 has admitted the claims filed by the employees despite being barred under the provisions of Section 20 (2) of the Act, wherein a limitation period of six months is provided, commencing from the date the claims become payable. Although the proviso enables a party to seek condonation of delay, but an application is required to be filed by the Applicant, showing sufficient cause for the delay, which was not done in the present case. While Mr. Cama concedes that from the inspection of the record before the Authority, it is evident that an application seeking condonation of delay w