Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, especially when condoning delays, to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary actions.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Smt. Anjali Agarw al, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri N.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“....to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to and connected with order dt.23.12.2020 in I.A.No. of 2019 in Application No.MW/158/2019 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and to pass......”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that Respondent No.2 worked as a messenger in the petitioners' bank, Indian Overseas Bank, from 2008 to 2014. Initially, Respondent No.2 had approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Hyderabad, seeking absorption into the service of the petitioners' bank as a Messenger. After conciliation proceedings failed, Respondent No.2 filed an application before Respondent No.1 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which was registered as MW.No.158/2019, with a delay of 4028 days. The application should have been made within six months, as per Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. Despite this, Respondent No.1, vide order dated 23.12.2020, condoned the delay without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

5. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed in I .A.No. of 2019 in Application No.MW/158/2019 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Authority is extracted hereunder:

“Counsels of applicant and OP are present. Submission of applicant and objection of OP with regard to delay in filing the claim application was examined and the delay in filing the claim application is condoned. Posted to 16.03.2021 at 14.30 hrs for OP to file the main written submission/objection.”

6. The relevant portion of the interim order of this Court, dated 19.04.2021 passed in I .A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.9225 of 2021, w hich is in force as on date is extracted hereunder:

“There shall be interim stay of the proceedings in Application No. MW/158/43/2019 issued by the first respondent subject to condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) before the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from today.”

7. Section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is extracted hereunder:

“Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under sub- section (3):

Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable:

Provided further that 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.”

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly puts forth the ground that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1, dated 23.12.2020, is not in accordance with the law, specifically the second proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . The order of Respondent No.1 is not a judicious order, as Respondent No.1 failed to assign reasons while condoning the delay of 4028 days. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1, dated 23.12.2020, clearly indicates that Respondent No.1 condoned the delay without application of mind. On the basis of the aforesaid sub