THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27968 of 1998 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, calling in question the correctness of an order passed by the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, who allowed the application preferred by the 2nd respondent employee herein. The competent authority has passed an order on 10th June 1998, condoning the delay in approaching the said authority by the employee concerned. The matter was directed to be posted for hearing on 20th June 1998. This order passed by the competent authority has given rise to the Writ Petition instituted by the employer. The principal contention canvassed on behalf of the employer was that the 2nd respondent employee was paid wages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and hence, the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not entitled to entertain the claim made by the 2nd respondent employee in that regard, inasmuch as the competent authority has jurisdiction to entertain claims made by the employees whose wages do not exceed Rs.1600/- per month only. It will be appropriate to notice that the employer has also taken an objection that the delay in approaching the authority under the Payment of Wages Act by the 2nd respondent, nearly after 3 ½ years period ought not to have been condoned without providing an opportunity to the employer herein. Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the writ petitioner very strenuously submits that by condoning the delay, the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act has indicated his mind that he was favourably inclined to entertain the claim of the 2nd respondent and that by condoning the delay ex parte, the right of the employer to contest the case has suffered a grave prejudice. Since the 2nd respondent employee has not preferred to enter appearance in the matter, I have appointed Ms. M. Shilpa, Advocate to appear on behalf of the 2nd respondent employee. I have heard her submissions in this regard. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (henceforth referred to as “Act No. 4 of 1936”) is an Act to regulate the payment of wages of certain classes of employed persons, which was considered expedient to do so. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of Act No. 4 of 1936 made it clear that the Act applies at the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory or persons employed in any railway either directly or through a sub-contractor or to persons employed in an industrial or other establishments specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2. Section 2 of the Act defined various expressions. The expression “industrial or other establishment” has been defined in Clause (ii) of Section 2. Sub-clause (h) thereof granted liberty to the appropriate Government, having regard to the nature of the establishment to notify the same to be regulated by the provisions of the said Act. Similarly, the expression “wages” has been defined in clause (vi)(b)(i) of Section 2 as meaning of remuneration whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise expressed in terms of money as payable to a person employed in respect of his employment. Section 3 of the Act has thrust responsibility for payment of wages compulsorily on every employer. Section 15 empowered the authority notified by the appropriate Government as the competent authority to hear and decide such claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages of persons employed including all matters incidental to such claims. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 made it clear that if any deduction, contrary to the provisions of this Act have been made from the wages of an employed person, such person himself, or through any official of a registered trade union authorized by him in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1) may apply to such authority for a direction under sub- section (3) thereof. The first proviso added thereto points out that every such application shall be presented within 12 months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made. However, the second proviso added thereto reads as under: “ Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of 12 months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” Therefore, the statute has abundantly left the matter to the discretion of the competent authority to condone the delay in moving an application under sub-section (2) of Section 15 even beyond the period of 12 months specified therein. It is for the competent authority to be satisfied that there are valid and justifiable reasons for condonation of the delay that has occasioned in moving the application before the competent authority. While it is true that every quasi-judicial authority while discharging such functions, is required to act fairly and judiciously, but at the same time, admitting a claim petition by condoning the delay ex parte in moving such an application in terms of the 2nd proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 15, it would be difficult to subscribe to the view that the competent authority has either acted injudiciously or in excess of his jurisdiction. To my mind, condonation of delay for the purpose of admitting the claim petition by the competent authority, at that stage, is a matter to be gone into by the competent authority. Until and unless he admits the claim petition moved by an employee, he will not be able to initiate the further steps of adjudicating the same. Before adjudication, the competent authority is bound to put the employer or person responsible for making such deductions, on notice, and provide him an opportunity to contest the case on merits. It is also significant to note that the ex parte order of condonation of delay is not going to seriously impact the defense that is liable to be put up by an employer before the competent authority. In that respect, no prejudice is going to be caused to the employer in putting forth his defense. Far from that, should the employer suffer any such prejudice because of non- availability of records due to lapse of time, the employer is not precluded from demonstrating and establishing such a prejudice before the competent authority and request the competent authority to deny the claim all due to the laxity on the part of the claimant. Therefore, the prejudice that is caused to the employer, even if there is any, by the ex parte condonation of the delay by the competent authority for the purpose of admitting the claim petition, would not result in an irreversible or irreparable hardship or damage to the employer. The employer is still liable to demonstrate any such hardship or damage or inconvenience or prejudice that has visited him by virtue of the delay in the matter of making the claim by the claimant. The impugned order is virtually in the nature of an interim order. Even if such an order is passed by way of exercise of discretion vested with the competent authority improperly, the employer ought not to have dragged on the matter by instituting the present Writ Petition. There is no justification whatsoever for the employer to have denied the adjudication process of the claim made by the 2nd respondent employee. The objections raised in this Writ Petition that the Authority under Payment of Wages Act does not have the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent, in fact, has been paid his wages, which are legitimately due to him, are all matters, which have got to be adjudicated by the competent authority. They cannot be speculated, at this stage, by this Court. No opinion is liable to be rendered thereon. The Authority competent to adjudicate these disputes must be allowed a free hand to pronounce its opinion on merits and it is thereafter, for the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 17 of the Act to rectify any such errors, which were noticed in the matter of adjudication by the primary authority. While instituting legal proceedings, even at an interlocutory stage and that too even against innocuous orders, the employer is only seeking to delay the process of adjudication and thus heighten the hardship and prejudice to the employee. In fact, this kind of litigative zeal on the part of the employer to keep agitating about the validity of every innocuous order passed by the competent authority vested with the power to determine social welfare legislations has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act[1]. I, therefore, do not have any hesitation to dismiss this Writ Petition. All the questions raised by the writ petitioner employer are liable to be raised for adjudication before the competent authority. It is for the competent authority to take all such questions into account and consideration and then adjudicate the claim made by the 2nd respondent. Before I part with this case, I must place on record my sincere appreciation for the enormous effort that has been put in by the leaned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as by Ms. M. Shilpa. Both the learned counsel, though are very young at the Bar, are fairly good at articulating their respective contentions. While I appreciate the efforts put in by them, but however, in the view that I have taken, I have not adverted in great detail to the submissions made by them respectively on the merits of the matter, as I feel that any observations I might make on such contentions is likely to have a bearing upon the dispute which is liable to be adjudicated by the competent authority. I, therefore, dismiss this Writ Petition without costs. I direct the competent authority to adjudicate the claim raised by the 2nd respondent employee as expeditiously as possible, but however, within a maximum period of six months from today. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th November 2009 ksld [1] 2002 (4) ALT 559