IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P.No.13493 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.15889 of 2018 The Management of M/s.Steel Strips Wheels Ltd., A.10, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Oragadam, Vallam Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District – 602 105, Rep. by its Chief General Manager (Works) ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour – II, Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, DMS Compound, Chennai – 600 006.

2.Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Uzhiyargal Matrum Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam, No.15, Kannan Street, Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

Rep. by the General Secretary ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the record of the first respondent in MW Case No.3 of 2015, quash the order dated 25.04.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal Advocates For Respondents : Labour Court [R1]

Mr.V.Ajoy Khose [R2]

*****

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in MW Case No.3 of 2015 and quash the order dated

25.04.2018.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of manufacture of automotive wheels. The 2^nd respondent union filed an application under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'the MV Act') along with condone delay petitions before the 1^st respondent stating that the wages paid to the workmen of the petitioner factory was much less than what was being prescribed by the Government. The application was filed in September 2014 and the claim related from October onwards. The delay was more than 7 years. The 2^nd respondent filed the condone delay petition claiming that the delay was only 1470 days, whereas the delay was more than 7 years in certain cases. As per the MV Act, application should be filed within six months and being so, the delay of more than 2400 days was inordinate and therefore, the delay should not be condoned, however the 1^st respondent has condoned the delay and taken up the case filed by the 2^nd respondent as M.W.No.3 of 2015. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.79,86,233/- as arrears in minimum wages and Rs.2,39,58,699/- as compensation to the 161 employees as described in the annexure. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

1^st respondent having condone the delay of 1470 days could not have granted any relief for the period beyond 1470 days. The 1^st respondent ought to have restricted the relief if at all to 1470 days and could not have granted the relief for nearly 2465 days. Further, he submitted that the 1^st respondent failed to appreciate the manufacturing process in the petitioner's factory commenced only on 26.02.2009 and therefore, the question of payment of minimum wages for the period prior to the same does not arise. He further submitted that the 1^st respondent failed to appreciate that the payment of wages for National and Festival Holidays would arise only when an employee report for work in terms of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival holidays) Act, 1958 and no additional wages is payable for weekly holidays, national or festival holidays. Therefore, the order passed by the 1^st respondent is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that as per second proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, claim applications can be admitted even after the prescribed period of limitation of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Therefore, the labour court has condoned the delay.