IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH W.P.No. 12971 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 M/s. Suspa Pneumatics India (P)Ltd., Pandur Village, Kayarambedu P.O. Guduvancheri, Kanchipuram District – 603 202 represented by its Chief Executive Officer ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour -2, Authority under Minimum Wages Act, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The General Secretary, Chennai Etrumathi Valaga Uzhiagal and General Workers Union, No.11, M.E.S.Road, Kadaperi, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in its order in M.W.I.A.No.11 of 2007, dated 10.04.2008 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Yashood Vardhan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Venkataraman For Respondent 1 : No appearance For Respondent 2 : Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Stalin ORDER The writ petition has been filed by the Management seeking to quash the order impugned dated 10.04.2008 passed by the first respondent whereby the application filed by the second respondent seeking to condone the delay in filing the application for payment of Minimum Wages was allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The second respondent herein is the Union consisting of employees of the petitioner. An application was filed in the year 2007 by the second respondent on behalf of his members seeking to condone the delay of 2126 days after deducting the permissible limit of six months in filing the application for payment of Minimum Wages. The said application filed by the second respondent was allowed by the order impugned and challenging the same, the petitioner, who is the Management has filed the present writ petition. In the said application filed seeking to condone the delay, the second respondent has stated that the petitioner has been paying the salary which is lesser than the statutory payment of Minimum Wages. In spite of several request made, the petitioner has refused to pay the said amount of minimum wages, but on the contrary was involved in the vindictive activities. Therefore, the members joined together with the second respondent Union. The petitioner has taken action against the second respondent Union also. Therefore, under those circumstances the application has been filed with the delay of 2126 days seeking the payment of Minimum Wages. The first respondent has allowed the application on the ground that considering the materials available on record, an opportunity will have to be given to the second respondent to present his case. The first respondent has further held that the object of the Minimum wages act is to provide minimum wages to the workman concerned and therefore, the said enactment being a welfare legislation technicalities shall not stand in the way of considering the real dispute between the parties. Hence, the first respondent after considering the principles underlying the applications filed for condonation of delay has allowed the application filed by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no sufficient reasons have been assigned in the application filed by the first respondent and the application has been filed after the huge delay which is not been explained properly. The second respondent has also not considered the issue correctly. Most of the applicants are not workman under the Act and they are not entitled for the payment of Minimum Wages being apprentices. In support of the contention the learned counsel made reliance upon the Judgment of this Court rendered in Management, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals (represented by its President) v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. 4. Per contra, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent submitted that between the very same parties, this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the writ petition on the similar facts in W.P.No.25330 of 2008 dated 29.06.2010 and the said order has become final between the parties. The learned Senior Counsel also made reliance upon the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in W.P.No.24640 of 2006 wherein the Judgment relying upon the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the petitioner was also considered and distinguished. The learned counsel further submitted that in W.P.No.33738 of 2007 dated 25.10.2007, this Hon'ble Court held that inasmuch as there is no period of limitation for filing an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act merely because the first respondent has approached the second respondent the delay cannot be put against for deciding the dispute between the parties. The learned Senior Counsel made further reliance upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court in Arun Alexander Lakshman, Proprietor, M/s.Alraj Builders, No.15, First Main Road, Kumaran Nagar, Chennai- 600 111 and another v.A.P.Vedavalli 2007(4) CTC 449 and submitted that in a case where discretion is exercised, the same shall not be interfered with. Hence the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the writ petition will have to be dismissed. 5. A perusal of the application filed by the second respondent would show that sufficient reasons have been assigned for seeking to condone the delay. It has been specifically averred that the petitioner has not paid the minimum wages in spite of the several request and on the contrary has been involved in taking action against the employees concerned. Thereafter, the employees joined with the second respondent Union and filed appropriate application. Based upon the above said reasoning, the application was filed to condone the delay. The second respondent has considered the entire materials available on record and passed a speaking order. The second respondent has also considered the object of the enactment being a welfare legislation as well as the various decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was held that the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay while dealing with the welfare legislation more so when considering an application filed by the labourers who were preventing from filing the same earlier. When the first respondent has exercised the power vested under Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an Appellate Authority and set aside the same. The discretion exercised by the first respondent being a judicial discretion based upon the relevant materials placed before him, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court by exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is seen that between the very same petitioner and the second respondent in a case involving a delay of 2672 days in filing the application in the Minimum Wages Act this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on an identical circumstances. The said order passed by this Hon'ble Court has become final between the parties in W.P.No.33738 of 2007 dated 25.10.2007. This Honorable Court while considering the question of contention of the delay in filing the application under the Minimum Wages Act has held as follows: "7.It must be noted that apart from the claim under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the workmen can also lay a similar claim before the forum under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If workmen makes the claim under Section 33C(2), there is no limitation prescribed. Further, it is not as if the petitioner is paying the minimum wages. On the contrary, their argument is that they are not liable to pay any wage and the claim made by the workmen against them are not valid. If ultimately, it is held that the Notification applies then the petitioner Management is obliged to pay the amount and hence it is a question of continuing cause of action. 8.Therefore, in the order of condoning delay, Court will have to take a liberal view both in the context of continuing cause of action as well as due to the fact that a similar remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act, without any limitation. Further, the Supreme Court has held that non-payment of Minimum Wages will amount to forced labour, which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India." 7. Similarly, in W.P.No.24640 of 2006 dated 23.07.2008 this Hon'ble Court after considering the Judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner has held as follows: "9.The learned counsel for the petitioner per contra would rely on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sri Gandhiban Bus Service v. Labour Court (1964 (I) LLJ 709). In my opinion, the said judgment would, as a matter of fact, support the case of the second respondent rather than the case of the petitioner. The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows: "unless there is a finding that the workers were ignorant of their lawful rights or were prevented from putting forward their claims by reason of other circumstances, the decision that ignorance of the law could be regarded as a sufficient excuse in certain circumstances cannot apply." 10.This would go to show that, ignorance of law could be regarded as a sufficient excuse in certain circumstances. In the case on hand, the second respondent has stated that the Members of the second respondent Union who are employed under the petitioner Management were ignorant of the minimum wages to be paid to them as per the Act, and they came to know the same only after joining the second respondent Union. The said excuse of ignorance has been found to be bonafide and the same has been accepted by the first respondent. I do not find anything perverse in the said finding of the first respondent." 8. Therefore applying the above said ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ absolutely no absolute necessity to interfere with the order impugned passed by the first respondent. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents does not have any application to the present case on hand. In the said case, the learned Judge has observed that the order impugned therein did not contain any reason which is not a situation in the present case on hand. The second respondent has given sufficient reasons in the application filed for condonation of delay which has been found acceptance by the first respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned will have to be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The first respondent is directed to take the application filed for the payment of minimum wages by the second respondent and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mps To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour -2, Authority under Minimum Wages Act DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006. 1 cc To Mr.V.Stalin, Advocate, SR.88446. W.P.No. 12971 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 RSY(CO) RVL 04.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/