The court upheld the authority's decision to condone delay in filing for unpaid wages and awarded compensation, emphasizing compliance with minimum wage laws as a fundamental right.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The Petitioner is the Management engaged in the business of operating automobile service stations at various locations. The present dispute concerns their service station situated at Cuddalore, which functioned as an authorized service centre for M/s. Tata Motors. Following the termination of their dealership arrangement with Tata Motors, it is claimed that the service station was closed, resulting in the cessation of employment of Respondents 2 to 6, who left their services on 21.12.2016.

3. Respondents 2 to 6, however, filed an application before the 1st Respondent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act , 1948, seeking recovery of alleged unpaid wages in terms of the Minimum Wages Notification, invoking Section 20 of the Act. There was a delay of 3324 days in filing the said application, and therefore, they also filed an interim application seeking condonation of delay. Upon issuance of notice on the interim application, the Petitioner Management filed a counter affidavit, contending that the facts stated therein were erroneous. It was further submitted that the Respondent workmen could not claim that they were paid less than the prescribed minimum wages. Further, it was pointed out that their disputes concerning non-employment were already pending adjudication before the Labour Court in separate proceedings.

4. The Authority condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the matter, registering it as M.W.1/2018. In response, the Petitioner Management filed a counter statement denying the allegation that the workmen were paid less than the minimum wages. During the enquiry, Stanley Prakash, the 2^nd Respondent, was examined as PW1 on behalf of the workmen, while Punarvasudevi was examined as RW1 on behalf of the Management. The claim petitions filed by the workmen were marked as Exhibits A1 to A5. By the impugned order dated 15.04.2019, the Authority upheld the claims of Respondents 2 to 6, computed the wages due to them, and further directed payment of compensation at three times the amount for the delayed payment.

5. The amount ordered by the authority by the impugned order was as follows:-

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition was filed. When the matter was listed on 20.02.2020, this Court, while ordering notice to the Respondents, also granted interim stay of the impugned order, subject to the condition that Respondents 2 to 6 be paid the respective wages as indicated in the annexure to the impugned order. However, it was subsequently realized that none of Respondents 2 to 6 were in service, a fact which had already been stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Therefore, the interim order was a non-working order.

7. Pursuant to notice, the Respondents entered appearance. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during their tenure of service, the workmen had never raised any grievance regarding non-payment of minimum wages, and further, though they were offered employment at the Trichy Service Station, they refused to accept the same. It was also contended that Respondents 2 and 4 were only temporary workers. The Authority, it was argued, erred in condoning the inordinate delay. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Management, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour , reported in 2008 (2) LLJ 90 , wherein it was held that unexplained long delays cannot be condoned. The relevant passage from the said judgment reads as follows: –

“From the very reading of the decision, it is quite clear that if such an inordinate delay, that too in the absence of any c