THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12368 OF 2009 DATED: 14.06.2010 Between: The Mummidivaram Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited No.B 2568, Mummidivaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District, rep. by its President Kaki Bhairava Murthy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Cooperative Officer, East Godavari District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.05.2009 passed in A.P.S.E.M.P.No.1 of 2009 in A.P.S.E.No.3 of 2009 by the Authority under Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Amalapuram, the 2nd respondent herein. It appears, the 3rd respondent herein worked as a Cadre Secretary in the petitioner Society and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. While so, after his retirement, he filed a petition under Section 51 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), before the 2nd respondent, claiming an amount of Rs.1,46,289/- from the petitioner Society towards delayed wages, for the period from 01.04.2002 to 30.06.2006, and seeking appropriate directions to the petitioner Society in that regard. However, as there was a delay of 2100 days in filing the said petition, the 3rd respondent filed a petition in A.P.S.E.M.P.No.1 of 2009, seeking to condone the said delay, and it was pleaded by the 3rd respondent that he requested the petitioner Society several times for payment of delayed wages, but he was not paid and hence the petition for delayed wages could not be filed within the time prescribed. The said petition was resisted by the petitioner herein by filing counter and it was contended by the petitioner that no reasons were assigned for the delay and each day’s delay was not explained. The 2nd respondent, after detailed consideration of the matter and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987 SC 1353), referred by the counsel for the 3rd respondent, condoned the delay of 2100 days caused in filing the main petition, by the impugned order dated 04.05.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Society filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no sufficient reasons were furnished by the 3rd respondent for the delay of 2100 days occurred in filing the main petition and except stating that he requested the petitioner several times for payment of delayed wages, the 3rd respondent has not produced any material to that effect and, thus, he has not shown any sufficient cause for not filing the main petition within the time prescribed. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent advanced arguments supporting the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order is purely a discretionary order passed by the 2nd respondent, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the principles enunciated by the Apex Court with reference to condonation of delay, and no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the 2nd respondent relied on the decision of the Apex Court referred supra, wherein it was observed that refusing to condone delay result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated and as against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties, and accordingly condoned the delay of 2100 days caused in filing the petition for delayed wages by the 3rd respondent. Even otherwise, the 3rd respondent is claiming delayed wages from the petitioner Society and this is a matter of record and, by due enquiry, the authority can ascertain whether the 3rd respondent is entitled for the wages claimed. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, exercising his discretionary power, need not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14th June, 2010. IBL