THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22665 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Labour Contractor. He provides labour to various organisations. Respondent No.2 approached the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, respondent No.1 herein, by filing P.W.Case No.30 of 2010 with a plea that she was engaged as a Sweeper by the petitioner with respondent No.3, the principal employer, between 01.06.1999 and 31.12.2009 and during the said period, she was not paid wages stipulated by the competent authority. She claimed a sum of Rs.1,17,534/-. Since there was delay of about ten years, she filed I.A.No.2 of 2010 for condonation thereof under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short ‘the Act’). Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner contested the application by raising several grounds. It was urged that the very proceedings instituted by respondent No.2 are untenable and at the most, an application before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act ought to have been filed. It was also pleaded that the abnormal delay was not at all explained. Through order, dated 17.08.2010, respondent No.1 allowed the I.A. and condoned the delay. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri K.Lakshman, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri Shanker Anand Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 condoned the delay of about ten years in filing the case before him by respondent No.2. The only ground urged by respondent No.2 was that she is illiterate and she is not conversant with the relevant provisions of law and that as soon as she got proper advise and information, she filed the case. The plea of the petitioner was that even if the facts pleaded by respondent No.2 are taken into account, at the most, it would be a case for payment of minimum wages and the very institution of proceedings under the Act is untenable. Strong opposition was offered for the application for condonation of delay. It is no doubt true that the delay is enormous and very strong explanation is needed for it. However, an approach different from the one compared to other matters is warranted for the proceedings arising under the Labour Welfare Legislations. Before respondent No.1, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trustees of Bombay Port Vs.Premier Automobiles[1]. It was observed that in matters of this nature, the Authority should desist from taking into account the delay in institution of the proceedings irrespective of the extent thereof. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 is an illiterate woman and she was working as Sweeper. She is not expected to be conversant with the Court procedure or the rights, which are conferred upon her. Therefore, she cannot be denied the right to seek remedies. The condonation of delay, irrespective of the length thereof may result in undue hardship and prejudice to the respondents in such proceedings. Even while protecting the rights of an employee to seek remedy, decent balance can be struck by restricting the relief to a reasonable period, in the event of it being granted. It cannot be ignored that even where a person has lent amount to another, he cannot recover it after expiry of three years, unless limitation is saved otherwise. This Court is of the view that interest of both the parties can be protected by directing that in the event of any relief granted to respondent No.2, it shall be confined to the one for a period of four years preceding the date of institution of the case. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner that the case is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act is concerned, it has left to be decided by respondent No.1 itself. The contention of the petitioner that, at the most, it would fit into the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act on the one hand and the plea of respondent No.2 that the case is referable to Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Contract Labour Act needs to be examined by respondent No.1 while disposing of the case. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that in case any relief, if granted by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2, it shall be restricted to a period of four years anterior to the institution of proceedings. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds including those of jurisdiction before respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:13.09.2010. kdl [1] AIR 1974 923