Ignorance of law cannot be regarded as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing applications under S. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act unless there is a finding that the workers were ignorant of their lawful rights or were prevented from putting forward their claims by reason of other circumstances.

ORDER :- These writ petitions arise out of the order of the Labour Court, Madras, in these circumstances. The workers under two managements, the management of Sri Gandhiban Bus Service, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 411 of 1963, and the workers under the management of Sri Shanmughananda Bus Service, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1963, filed applications under the Minimum Wages Act, seeking directions by the Labour Court for the payment of the difference in the wages payable to the workers in each of these petitions. As there was a delay in the filing of the petitions, applications for the condonation of the delay were also filed. Thirty-five workers are involved in the first of the cases, and the claim against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 411 of 1963 runs to Rs. 2,63,260 and odd and in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1963, the claim is to the extent of Rs. 1,21,755 in respect of twenty employees. It was alleged by the workers that the managements in question had failed to implement the Minimum Wages Act. It was claimed that by reason of the action of the managements, the workers wore kept in ignorance of their rightful dues : that the managements were paying them at arbitrary rates on such days as the managements chose to employ them and that the managements failed to give publicity to the minimum wages fixed by the Act by displaying notices as required in the relevant rules. The working hours of a normal working day had not been fixed. Days of rest had not been provided in the week, and such other infringements on the part of the managements were alleged. It was further claimed that the workers had put in overtime work in excess of the eight hours' limit per day : nevertheless, no overtime wages were paid.

It is not necessary to traverse in detail these allegations, because in these writ petitions only the order of the Labour Court condoning the enormous delay of over ten years in the making of these applications is being canvassed. In so far as the applications to condone the delay are concerned, it may be broadly stated that the claim put forward covers various periods ranging from 12 to 165 months. It was only after the managements set up the plea that the claims were barred that the applications for the condonation of the delay were filed by workers. As stated already, the plea of the workers was that they were ignorant their rights and that the managements themselves ware responsible for keeping them so ignorant. The managements urged that broad statements of this description were wholly ineffective in explaining the delay and that the delay should not be condoned. But the Labour Court, for certain reasons which will be dealt with later, thought it just and proper to condone the delay, though the delay is of long periods, and the managements were thereafter called upon the meat the claims made in the petitions.

2. The petitioner-managements in the affidavit accompanying the petitions under Art.226 urge that the Labour Court has failed to apply the proper principles in considering the question of excusing the delay, that it has failed to appreciate the true scope and effect of the relevant rules framed under the Minimum Wages Act and has misinterpreted the relevant rule as laying any duty upon the managements it is also urged that a proceeding under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act is a legal proceeding for recovery of money, which under the law governing limitation cannot be enforced in a Court of law beyond a period of three years. In condoning the delay for periods extending to as much as over ten years, the Labour Court has virtually abrogated the law of limitation. Such a power cannot by any interpretation of S. 20 of the Act be deemed to exist in the Labour Court. It is upon these grounds that the order of the Labour Court is attacked as disclosing errors of law and excess of jurisdiction.

3. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the workers.

4. The Minimum Wages Act was placed on