WPMS No.527/2008 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala J. List has been revised. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner is present. The learned counsel for the respondents is not present nor any counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner is a workman and had moved an application under the minimum wages Act for payment of certain wages for the period from 1994 to July, 2005. The said application was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and the delay was condoned but unfortunately by the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of laches. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, has filed the present writ petition. Since no counter affidavit has been filed and the averments mentioned in the writ petition remains unrebutted, the court is of the opinion that once the delay has been condoned, the matter has to be decided on merit and that the authority could not have rejected the application on the ground of laches. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the matter on merit after hearing all the parties concerned. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated:9.6.2010 Nishant