IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8095 of 1998 Between: Transport Corporation of India Limited, Rep.by its Company Secretary Sri C.Agarwal. Autonagar,Vijayawada ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Zone-II, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Assistant Labour Officer,V-Circle, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate,writ,order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in MW MP No.27/96,dt.24-2-98 as illegal, unjust contrary to law, perverse and without jurisdiction; and grant all consequential beneﬁts and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent in MW MP No.27 of 1996 dated 24.2.1998. Before the ﬁrst respondent, the petitioner had resisted the application moved by the second respondent on two grounds, ﬁrstly it is barred by limitation and there is no explanation whatsoever for condonation of delay, secondly, on merits the petitioner management had contended that the workmen represented by the 2nd respondent were only a casual employee and at the given point of time they were not employed by the petitioner. The first respondent rejected both the contentions. So far as the ﬁrst contention is concerned, the ﬁrst respondent- authority held that the second respondent had given reasons for the delay and there is no denial of the said reasons in the counter ﬁled by the management, and secondly, on the basis of evidence recorded, it was found that the workmen were employed with the petitioner, and accordingly entitled to difference of wages. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the original application moved by second respondent based upon his inspection on 19.6.1996. However, in the statement annexed, claim was made for the years 1994 to 1996. The application does not contain very satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay except the interest of the workmen. In the counter ﬁled by the petitioner-management, it was speciﬁcally averred that the complaint is barred by time and there are no reasons for condonation of delay. The ﬁrst ground on which the ﬁrst respondent rejected the objection as to limitation bar is therefore flexible on record and the record speaks otherwise that the petitioner management did contest the said aspect by speciﬁcally raising the objection. Secondly the impugned order itself states that the concerned workman was examined as RW-2 and he deposed that he never worked with the petitioner management and has never seen the Inspector the workman. He further admitted in the cross examination that he never told the Inspector that he was getting salary of Rs.850/- and he was working as Watchman for two years. He deposed that the signature on Ex.A.1 is not that of him, but of somebody else. It is thus evident that RW-2 himself claimed that he never worked with the petitioner management, which has also not considered by the ﬁrst respondent. Under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, claim, which is ex-facie barred by time and is not supported warranting condonation thereof, ought not to have been entertained and even the report ﬁled and the application made by the second respondent to the ﬁrst respondent is found to be wholly unjustiﬁed. The impugned order therefore suﬀers from total misleading of record and conclusions are nothing but perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon MANSOOR AHMED v THE LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER[1] which would clearly applied to the factual situations herein, so far as limitation aspect discussed above is concerned. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned order of the ﬁrst respondent in MWMP No.27 of 1996 dated 24.2.1999. No costs. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 18th August, 2008 PNV ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8095 of 1998 18th August, 2008 [1] 1975 LAB-I.C. 1113