The prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act has discretion to condone delay in filing petitions if sufficient cause is shown, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

Aggrieved against order dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solan (prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ) in case No. 15/2 of 2017 titled Vikas Sharma and others vs. Tansen Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the impugned order.

2. The respondents preferred a petition under Sections 15 & 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, “The Act”) before the prescribed authority. The respondents claiming unpaid wages for the period 15.12.2015 to 08.04.2016, 15.12.2015 to 11.04.2016 and 15.12.2015 to 07.04.2016 respectively. The petition was instituted on 12.06.2017.

3. The petitioner without filing any reply to the petition of respondents, preferred an application before the prescribed authority with a prayer to dismiss the petition on the ground that the same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and no application for condonation of delay was filed.

4. The respondents filed reply to the application and averred that they in the first instance had filed application before learned Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan in the month of April, 2016. The proceedings before the said officer continued till 13.12.2016, on which date, the efforts for amicable settlement failed and no conciliation could be effected. With this background, the respondents sought benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

5. The learned prescribed authority dismissed the application of the petitioner by holding that the respondents were able to make out a case for condonation of delay as they had spent considerable time from April 2016 to December, 2016 in pursuing their remedy before Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

7. Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, reads as under:

“15. Claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.

(1) xx xx xx

(a) to (e ) xx xx xx

(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3):

Provided that every such application shall be presented within twelve months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be:

Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of twelve months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”

8. The limitation provided for preferring a petition for unpaid wages is 12 months from the date when the payment of wages became due.

9. Admittedly in this case, the petition was filed by the respondents before the prescribed authority beyond prescribed period.

10. However, the aforesaid bar is not absolute. The prescribed authority has been vested with jurisdiction to admit such petition beyond the period of 12 months in case the applicant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the petition within such period.

11. The perusal of petition preferred by the respondents before prescribed authority under Section 15 and 16 of the Act reveals that they disclosed the factum of complaint earlier filed by them before the Labour Officer- cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan. An averment was also made that though the petition of the respondents was within time, still in case the authority co