Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without convincing reasons under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Challenge is made to an order passed by the first respondent in M.W.I.A. No.63 of 2004 dated 6. 2005, whereby the delay occasioned in filing petition by the respondent-union claiming minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is condoned.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also looked into the materials available on record.

3. Concededly, 124 employees filed an application before the first respondent, whereby they sought for fixation of minimum wages by the writ petitioner-Management. The period for which they sought for minimum wages was from January, 1999 to December, 2004. While they filed the application, there was a delay of approximately six years. Hence, while they filed application for payment of minimum wages, an application to condone the delay was also filed. The same was countered by the writ petitioner herein. The first respondent has condoned the delay by allowing the application, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

4. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel would submit that when respondents 2 to 124 filed their application for payment of minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, they filed another application to condone the delay of six years. No reason much less convincing or acceptable reason was adduced to condone such inordinate delay and thus the delay remained unexplained. The only reason that was stated therein was only after joining the Union, they came to know that they are entitled for minimum wages and hence, they approached the Court. The ignorance of law cannot be an excuse, but the Authority below, without considering the legal position, mechanically ordered, allowing the application by condoning the delay and hence the said order has got to be set aside by issuance of a writ of certiorari.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-

.(i) GANDHIBAN BUS SERVICE v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LAB. COURT (AIR 1965 MADRAS 292)

.(ii) T.N.M. BANK LTD. v. APP. AUTY., SHOPS ACT (1990(1) LLN 457)

(iii) BINNY LTD. v. ASST.COMMR. OF LABOUR (2000-II-LLJ 969)

.(iv) KUDUMIYANMALAI PRIMARY AGRL. BANK LTD. v. P.O., L.C. (2002(3) L.L.N. 556)

.(v) PUTHIAVINAYAGAM PILLAI v. SIVASANKARAN PILLAI (1997 I MLJ 199)

.(vi) SUNDARAM STEEL CO., v. LAKSHMI (1997 I MLJ 376)

(vii) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MADRAS v. T.PITCHAIMANI (1998 II MLJ 151)

(viii) RAJ BAHADUR SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA (1998(9) SCC 458)

.(ix) MICHAL GILL v. M.P.SRTC (2002(10) SCC 119)

.(x) MANAGEMENT OF GE POWER CONTROLS INDIA (PVT) LTD. v. WORKMEN OF GE POWER CONTROLS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (2005(1) MLJ 165)

.(xi) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI DIVISION IV) LIMITED, DINDIGUL v. P.ELLAPPAN (2005 (1) MLJ 639)

6. Contrary to the above, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 124 would submit that in the instant case, the employees of the writ petitioner-Management, which is having so many institutions, have filed a petition for payment of minimum wages . It is true that they applied for minimum wages from January, 1999 to December, 2004 and they filed the said petition in January, 2005. As per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the petition for payment of minimum wages should be filed within a period of six months from the time when the payment of minimum wages becomes payable and the employee is entitled to get. Respondents 2 to 124 have stated two reasons for not filing the same in time. In the instant case, the Authority below has considered the same and condoned the delay.

7. The writ petitioner-Management is liable to pay the minimum wages to the employees to which they are entitled to get. It is true, there was a huge delay, but the Authority below allowed the petition, after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason that respondents 2 to 124 came to know that they are entitled to min