THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15654 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The 2nd respondent was employed as a Clerk, in the year 1987. He instituted proceedings before the 1st respondent, in M.W. Case Nos.24 and 25 of 2008, claiming minimum wages, for two spells, viz., 03.06.1991 to 31.03.2011 and 01.04.2001 to 30.09.2008, amounting to Rs.1,72,279/- and 58,461/-, respectively. He prayed for condonation of delay by stating certain reasons. The 1st respondent condoned the delay through order, dated 28.04.2009. That was followed by a final order dated 05.08.2009. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.20339 and 20451 of 2009, against the said orders. Both the writ petitions were allowed through order, dated 04.12.2009 and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent. After such remand, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 13.04.2011, awarding a sum of Rs.2,30,740/-. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent in condoning the delay of 17 years two months, when the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) mandates that the claim must be submitted within six months from the date on which the minimum wages became due. He contends that on merits also there was no basis for the 1st respondent to accept the claim of the 2nd respondent. Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the 1st respondent has examined the matter after remand, in detail, with reference to the relevant provisions of law and granted the relief. He contends that a lenient view was taken, on the ground that the petitioner is cooperative society and penalty was not levied. The Act provides for enforcement of the payment of minimum wages. The claims can be presented before the specified authority by the workmen themselves or by the Officers of the Labour Department. Six months time from the date on which, the minimum wages became due is stipulated for presentation of the claims. The Authority is conferred with the power to condone the delay. Wherever a claim is presented beyond the stipulated time, the claimant is required to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Authority. Further, the employer must be given an opportunity to contest the matter, at the stage of condonation of delay also. The 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent with a delay of more than 17 years. By no stretch of imagination it could have been condoned. Almost an ex parte order was passed on earlier occasion, both, on the application to condone the delay and on merits. This Court has set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent. At least, when the matter was remanded on the ground that the delay was condoned without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought to have been careful. Obviously because he is not trained in legal matters, the 1st respondent proceeded on the assumption that the delay was already condoned. The following sentence makes this clear: “The opposite party’s contention is mainly on delay and that in view of certain alleged fraudulent acts of the applicant and fearing action by the opposite party society the workman filed the claim mischievously. The delay has already been examined by this authority vide orders dated 28.04.2009 and the delay has been condoned basing on the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1987 SC 1353.” He failed to note the fact that the order dated 28.04.2009, through which he condoned the delay, was set aside by this Court, in its order passed in W.P.Nos.20339 and 20451 of 2009. In that view of the matter, a fresh order ought to have been passed, on the application to condone the delay. No such endeavour was made. The result would be that the 1st respondent proceeded to decide the matter on merits without appraising the question of delay. That ground would be sufficient to set aside the entire order. This Court, however, finds that the issue pertaining to payment of minimum wages to the 2nd respondent was the subject-matter of several proceedings and twice it landed before this Court. It is felt that the controversy can be given quietus by directing that the petitioner shall be under obligation to pay the dues of minimum wages, if any, to the 2nd respondent, for a period of three years preceding the presentation of the claim. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the impugned order, to the effect that the petitioner shall be under obligation to pay the difference, if any, of the amount representing the minimum wages, and the actual wages paid to the 2nd respondent, for a period of three years preceding the presentation of the claim. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:22.09.2011 GJ