THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1627 OF 2006 O R D E R: The Mandal Development Officer, Sadasivpet is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. He seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the 1st respondent, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 from entertaining and considering the claim petition bearing No. MW 150 of 2004 on his file, which was initiated by the 2nd respondent workman. The 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sanga Reddy is the competent authority to entertain claims under the Minimum Wages Act. The 2nd respondent claimed that he worked as a Watchman on nominal muster roll basis in the office of the Mandal Development Officer, Sadasivpet. He lodged a claim through his authorized representative, Sri Shaik Dada, an official of the Andhra Pradesh Work Charged Employees State Union, claiming payment of differential amount running to Rs.1,06,558/-, on the premise that the said amount has been short paid to him for the period commencing from 01.04.1992 to 31.03.2004. This application/claim petition has been moved after 01.04.2004. The petitioner herein has filed his affidavit opposing the condonation of delay of nearly 11 ½ years. It is the case of the writ petitioner that without passing any order, on the miscellaneous petition moved on behalf of the 2nd respondent workman seeking condonation of delay, the 1st respondent has straight away entertained the claim petition. It is also further pointed out that on behalf of the writ petitioner, it was specifically urged that the 1st respondent does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim also. The petitioner herein sought for deciding this issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. Since the 1st respondent has not passed any orders, but however, issued a notice for appearance of this writ petitioner, on 10.06.2005, at 03.00 pm. before him, the present Writ Petition has been filed. A writ of prohibition can be issued, provided the authority, who is proceeding further in consideration of a matter, lacks jurisdiction or power to do so. Under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it is the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who has been constituted as the competent authority for entertaining any claims, in accordance with Section 20 of that Act. Under sub-section (1) of Section 20, it is open to the appropriate Government, by notification in the official gazette, to appoint any Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate as a competent authority to determine and decide for any specified area all such claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages. Hence, writ of prohibition to refrain the 1st respondent from considering the claim would not arise. It will, however, be important to notice that the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20 makes it very clear that every application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount become payable. It is therefore, clear that the claim petition moved after 12 years is not entertainable ordinarily. However, the second proviso to sub-section (2) gives power for the competent authority to entertain any such application, which is presented beyond the period of six months, when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. It is therefore, imperative for any claimant, who makes a claim under Section 20, for a period, which is beyond six months, to seek condonation of delay satisfactorily explaining the cause for such delay. It is for the competent authority to adjudicate the factors and only if he is satisfied that there are genuine reasons that prevented the claimant from lodging the claim within six months period, he can condone the delay. The discretion vested by the statute maker in the competent authority is not an absolute one, but is liable to be exercised judiciously. Unfortunately, in the instant case, from the material available on record, I do not find any such order passed by the competent authority condoning the delay. It is quite possible that the competent authority may not have condoned the delay in lodging the claim before him and the writ petitioner may have rushed to this Court no sooner the notice was received by him. The objection raised by Ms. Ambuja, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that without condoning the delay, the 1st respondent has assigned a case number bearing M.W.No. 150 of 2004 to the claim lodged by the 2nd respondent and hence, the 1st respondent shall be deemed to have condoned the delay, is unsustainable one. The 1st respondent perhaps may not be following the same procedure, which the Courts generally adopt and follow. Normally, wherever there is a condonation of delay application moved, the registry of any Court would not be assigning a regular number to the main case. The regular number will be assigned only depending upon the result of the application seeking condonation of delay. The 1st respondent perhaps may not have been following the same procedure. By his assigning a regular number to the main case, one cannot assume that the 1st respondent has already condoned the delay in lodging the claim by the 2nd respondent. I therefore, construe that the 1st respondent has not yet passed any orders condoning the delay. Unfortunately, neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent workman filed any counter-affidavit in this matter clarifying the factual position. This being an old case, and since I have already adjourned the case five times so far, I have preferred not to adjourn the case any further. Hence, I direct the 1st respondent to deal with the issue of condonation of delay in lodging the claim by the 2nd respondent workman at the first instance. The 1st respondent shall also deal with the issue of jurisdiction and competence, raised by the writ petitioner herein, at the next stage before proceeding further on merits of the matter. The name of the 2nd respondent workman as well as his representative Sri Shaik Dada were also printed in the cause list as the 2nd respondent has not entered appearance in the matter, notwithstanding the receipt of the notice. But, none appeared. Therefore, subject to what has been observed supra, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 24th February 2011 ksld