HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2854 OF 2002 ORDER: The 1st respondent approached the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the 2nd respondent herein, claiming Rs.86,450/- from the petitioner, said to be the difference of wages for the period between 01-10-1991 to 17-04-1999. There was delay of about eight (8) years in filing the application. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed miscellaneous petition No.5 of 2001 before the 2nd respondent with a request to condone the delay. The application was opposed by the petitioner. Through order, dated 03-01-2002, the 2nd respondent condoned the delay. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitation for filing the application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the MW Act’) is six months, whereas the application was filed with a delay of eight years. He contends that the 2nd respondent did not mention the reasons for condonation of such an enormous delay. 3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner approached the authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Shops Act’), before approaching the 2nd respondent and the same was taken into account for condoning the delay. He contends that the remedy under beneficial legislation cannot be denied to the person, who is not conversant with the legal procedure. 4. The 1st respondent was employed with the petitioner as Sweeper. It appears that her services were terminated in the year 1990. Challenging the order of termination, the 1st respondent filed APSE case No.12 of 1999 before the authority under the Shops Act. It is during the course of hearing of that case that the petitioner felt the necessity of instituting proceedings under the MW Act. She claimed the minimum wages for the period between 01-10-1991 and 17-04- 1999. That Act prescribes the limitation of six months for institution of the proceedings. By any standard, delay of eight years is enormous and it could not have been condoned, unless convincing and special circumstances exist. The only plea raised by the 1st respondent for condonation of such an enormous delay was that she had already instituted the proceedings under the Shops Act and she ought to institute the proceedings under the Act, when it was realized during the course of the proceedings under the Shops Act. Even if that fact is taken into account, the petitioner can be said to have become aware of her rights in the year 1999. Assuming that the petitioner has instituted the proceedings under the MW Act in the year 1999, there still remains the delay of almost eight years. 5. The prescription of six months limitation for the proceedings under the MW Act has its own significance. An employer would pay the wages, which in his understanding and capacity would be adequate. If the adequacy of the wages is challenged, years after the payment was made, the whole arrangement of the employer becomes disturbed. The 1st respondent hardly furnished any reasons for condonation of such an enormous delay. This Court is of the view that the 1st respondent can institute proceedings claiming the minimum wages for a period of three years preceding the date of institution and seek condonation of delay to that extent. For this purpose, she can either file a fresh case, which inturn can be taken to have been filed on the date on which the MWMP Case No.5 of 2001 is filed or she can seek amendment of the existing application. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 1st respondent to confine her claim to the period covering three (3) years prior to the date of institution of the proceedings. In such an event, the 2nd respondent shall examine the matter and dispose it of on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 19, 2011. KTL