The authority under the Minimum Wages Act can condone delays in filing claim petitions if sufficient reasons, such as health issues, are demonstrated, emphasizing a liberal construction of the term 'sufficient cause.'

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the 2^nd respondent, the authority under the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 (for short 'the Act,1948').

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of pharmaceuticals. The 1^st respondent was working as a Medical and Sales Representative in the petitioner Company, who was terminated from service. The 1^st respondent filed Ext.P2 claim petition seeking to release an amount of Rs.3,58,982/-, which is the minimum wages due to him as per the provisions of the Act, 1948. Petitioner would contend that even on a perusal of Ext.P2 claim petition, it could be seen that the 1^st respondent has not specifically claimed or pleaded the period as well as the rates in which he is entitled to get the minimum wages. Ext.P4 counter statement has been filed by the petitioner wherein the question of limitation has been specifically raised and contended that the claim petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and the question of maintainability needs to be heard as a preliminary issue. Though the 1^st respondent was dismissed from service during 2015, he has filed various complaints before various authorities during the said period for which the condonation of delay is sought for. The case of the petitioner is that there are no arrears of minimum wages to be paid to the 1^st respondent. Ext.P5 rejoinder was filed by the 1^st respondent. Evidence was adduced, and Exts.A1 to A8 documents were marked on the side of the 1^st respondent. Though the salary details of the 1^st respondent were submitted by the petitioner Company, the same were not marked since the same did not contain any seal. The 2^nd respondent authority, without appreciating the facts as well as the law, in a unilateral manner allowed the claim petition by Ext.P7 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 petition is barred by limitation, in as much as Section 20(2) of the Act, 1948 mandates that an application/claim petition is to be filed within six months from the date on which minimum wages became payable, though on sufficient reasons to be shown the delay could be condoned. But in the present case, no valid reason has been stated for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. It is further contended that no amount is due to the 1^st respondent, and the 2^nd respondent, while issuing Ext.P7 order, has not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner in a proper manner and that he has not given any reason for condoning the delay and allowing the claim petition. It is also contended that the 1^st respondent failed to prove his claim by adducing proper evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the salary statement as Ext.P8, which was not accepted by the authority as the same was not signed and sealed by a competent person. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P9, which is the application filed by the 1^st respondent before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, contends that the petitioner is taking different stands regarding the last drawn monthly wages.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent, contending that he was employed as a Medical Sales Representative in the petitioner company and later he was discharged as per Ext.R1(a) discharge letter dated 9.9.2015, and in Ext.R1(a) it is clearly mentioned that the last month pay is only Rs.6167/- which is much below the minimum wages fixed by