Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1352
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Rambal Limited, rep by its Head-HR-Admin, Kanchipuram District – Appellant
Vs. \
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II cum Authority, Teynampet & Another – Respondent
W.P.Nos. 1574 & 1575 of 2014
Decided On : 17-03-2015
For the Petitioner:C.K. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, R. Lakshminarayanan, R2, N.G.R. Prasad for M/s Row & Reddy, Advocates.
Headnote:
Labour law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sec. 12(3) - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Section 20(2) – Workmen – Wages - Delay/Laches/Limitation – Condonation of delay - Delay of 1585 to 3150 days in filing claim petition - Sufficient cause - Non payment of minimum wages to 57 and 102 workers resulting in huge delay - According to petitioner/Management, since delay is from two to nine years, second respondent should have given sufficient cause and justifiable reasons for condoning the long delay - Petitioner also disputed maintainability of claim stating that employees have been paid wages, due to them, at appropriate time and in accordance with Sec. 12(3) Settlements - Absence of any reason for condoning long delay, petitioner contended that impugned order passed by first respondent in applications is liable to be set aside - Held, Authority has a discretion to condone delay in presenting application provided sufficient cause for entire delay is shown to its satisfaction - The ratio laid down in judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 222 (Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat vs Ramgiri Gosavi and another squarely applies to facts and circumstances of present case – Therefore order of first respondent, in condoning delay, cannot be justified - However, even if delay is not condoned, entire claim for Minimum Wages, cannot be rejected - Therefore, in interest of justice and for benefit of workers - Court view that it would be just and proper to condone delay of three years - It would be fit to condone delay of upto three years and entertain Claim Petitions as it stands before first respondent – Direction issued - Writ petitions disposed of.
1. W.P.No.1574 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner/Management to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 5.11.2013 passed by the first respondent in allowing MW.CIA No.3 of 2012 filed by the second respondent, condoning the delay of 1585 to 3150 days in filing the claim petition by the Union.
W.P.No.1575 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner/Management to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 5.11.2013 passed by the first respondent allowing MW.CIA No.2 of 2012 filed by the second respondent to condone the delay of 614 to 3531 days in filing the claim petition by the Union.
2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.
According to the petitioner, the second respondent Union entered into negotiated settlements with the petitioner/Management regarding the service conditions of the workers, including their wages. The settlements were entered into before the first respondent and were made under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Union filed petitions on 5.4.2012 and 30.4.2012 alleging non payment of minimum wages to 57 and 102 workers resulting in huge delay.
3. According to the petitioner, under the second proviso to Sec.20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, "any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
4. According to the petitioner/Management, since the delay is from two to nine years, the second respondent should have given sufficient cause and justifiable reasons for condoning the long delay. The petitioner also disputed the maintainability of the claim stating that the employees have been paid the wages, due to them, at the appropriate time and in accordance with Sec. 12(3) Settlements. In the absence of any reason for condoning the long delay, the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the first respondent in the applications is liable to be set aside.
5. According to the second respondent/Union, the Management did not pay the minimum wages, notified under Section 3(1) (b) and 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, the second respondent Union filed minimum wage applications for 57 and 102 workers. There was a delay in filing the applications before the first respondent. However, according to the second respondent, the delay is neither wilful nor wanton. The second respondent contended that the moment the workers have joined the second respondent Union, they requested the Management to pay the minimum wages, which, they are entitled to under the statute. As per Sec.25 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, no settlement can take away the right accrued to the workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is the responsibility of the Management to implement the notification and provide the minimum wage, which is the least that is expected of them. The Management cannot take advantage of the delay which was on account of the employees not being aware of the notification. In these circumstances, the second respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. The first respondent, by order dated 5.11.2013, condoned the delay and allowed MW CIA Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 filed by the second respondent Union. Aggrieved over the same, the Management has filed the above writ petitions.
7. Heard Mr.C.K. Chandrasekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner Management and Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the second respondent Union.
8. Mr.C.K. Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management submitted that the second respondent Union has not put forth any reason for condoning the inordinate delay of about 2 years to 9 years. Inspite of the same, the first respondent has erroneously condoned the delay. The learned counsel further submitted that under Sec.20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, the employee must give acceptable reaso
