IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10016 of 2002 M/S AMBA KESHARI CHITRA MANDIR & ANO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10/ 11.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 11.05.2002, 03.07.2002 and 11.06.2002 passed in Minimum Wages Case nos. 138 to 146 of 2002 by Assistant Labour Commissioner. The petitioner no.1 is a Cinema Hall represented through its proprietor petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends before this Court that the impugned orders passed by respondent no.2, Assistant Labour Commissioner, is bad in law as without condoning the delay he has admitted the application for hearing on merit. He states that petitioner by way of interlocutory application has further prayed for quashing the order dated 01.11.2002 passed in Minimum Wages Case nos. 138 to 146 of 2002 by Assistant Labour Commissioner, respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure-6, whereby final order regarding liability of minimum wages has been passed . Learned counsel submits that Section 20(1) of the Act cannot be entertained for the purposes of enforcing less payment of wages when there is no dispute about the minimum wages, which is to be paid. Learned counsel submits that even if petitioner has paid less than the minimum wages fixed, then the remedy would be under the payment of minimum wages Act under Section 20(3) and / or Section - 2 - 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioners placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Binod Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 313. The petitioners do not dispute that in appropriate cases the delay can be condoned but the same has to be pleaded and condoned. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Awadh Lal Sah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1983 PLJR 413. The respondents submit that the petitioners did not raise any objection regarding limitation and as such Assistant Labour Commissioner rightly admitted the application for hearing. They state that the petitioners should have availed statutory appeal under Section 20 (6) of the Bihar Minimum Wages Act in view of Bihar Amendment. Ordinarily, this Court would have asked the petitioners to file an appeal but as this case has been heard on earlier occasion, this Court now proceeds to examine the issues raised by the parties. I find that the Assistant Labour Commissioner has admitted the petition for hearing without condoning the delay. In this view of the matter, I remit the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna Division to pass appropriate order in respect of condonation of delay within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. It will be open to the parties to raise their respective points. As the case is disposed of on this point alone, this Court is not going into the other issues. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed - 3 - of for consideration of the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Till the consideration of the matter before the respondent no.2, the impugned order would be kept in abeyance. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)