CR No.5488 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.5488 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 21, 2012 Manphool Chauhan .... Petitioner Versus Sukhpal Singh & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. * * * * PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate for respondents. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Manphool Chauhan who is respondent before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short, the Act), Sirsa (in short, the Authority) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 03.08.2011 Annexure P-4 passed by the Authority thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by the petitioner herein for rejection of application Annexure P-1 moved by respondents herein under the Act claiming balance amount of minimum wages for the period from 26.02.2009 till 28.09.2009 being time barred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to first proviso to Section 20(2) of the Act, application by the employee can be filed within six months from the date on which the amount claimed became payable. In the instant case, application Annexure P-1 claiming wages from 26.02.2009 till 28.09.2009 was filed on 10.11.2010 i.e. beyond the aforesaid limitation period of six months. However, under second CR No.5488 of 2011 -2- proviso to Section 20(2) of the Act, if the employee satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within limitation period of six months, the application may be entertained by the Authority even after the said period of six months. Counsel for respondents (employees) seeks liberty to file application under second proviso to Section 20(2) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing application Annexure P-1 before the Authority. The prayer is opposed by counsel for the petitioner herein. I have carefully considered the matter. In reply to application Annexure P-2 moved by the petitioner herein, it was pleaded that application Annexure P-1 could not be filed earlier for certain reasons. However, no application for seeking condonation of delay under second proviso to Section 20(2) of the Act was filed before the Authority by respondents herein. In these circumstances, ends of justice would be met if liberty as prayed for is granted to the respondents herein. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-4 passed by the Authority is set aside. If respondents herein move application before the Authority seeking condonation of delay within one month from today, the said application shall be decided by the Authority along with application Annexure P-2 in accordance with law. However, if no such application is filed by respondents herein within one month from today, then application Annexure P-2 shall stand allowed and application Annexure P-1 filed by respondents herein shall stand dismissed as time barred. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21.02.2012 'raj'