IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.608, 1561 and 9485 of 2007 WRIT PETITION NO : 608 of 2007 Between: M/s Maharshi Commerce Limited (Previously known as M/s. Poddar Projects) Plot No. 76, IDA Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Ranga Reddy District, Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Chikkdapally, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Tribuvan Singh, S/o. Singashan Singh, C/o. Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Roads Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue as appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natural of writ of certiorari call for the records from the 1st Respondent in MW.No. 12/2002 and quash the order passed by the 1st Respondent in MW.No. 12/2002 dated. 13.11.2006, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION NO : 1561 of 2007 Between: M/s. Maharshi Commerce Limited, Previously Known as M/s. Poddar Praojects), Plot No. 76, IDA,Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Ranga Reddy District, Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Chikkdapally, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Mohd Ghulam Ghouse S/o Faker Mohammed C/o Asst. Commissionerof Labour Rnga Reddy District at Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records from the 1st respondent in M.W No. 13 of 2002 and quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in M. W.No. 13 of 2002 dated 13- 11-2006, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary perverse and without jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION NO : 9485 of 2007 Between: M/s.Maharshi commerce Limited (Previously known as M/s. Poddar Projects), Plot No.76, IDA, Nacharam, ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant commissioner of Labour, Circle -II< Ranga Reddy District, Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Roads, chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 2 V.K.Mishra S/o.Kashinath Misra, C/o.Asst. commissioner of Labour,II. Ranga REddy District at Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records from the 1st respondent in M.W.No.14 of 2002 and quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in M.W.No.14 of 2002 dated 13.11.2006, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: In these three writ petitions, a common order, dated 13.11.2006, passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, is challenged. The concerned employee is arrayed as respondent No.2, in each of the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the respondents. The respondents filed M.W.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 2002 before the first respondent, claiming that they were not paid wages at the rates prescribed by the Government for the posts held by them. The difference of wages was claimed for the period from June, 2000 to September, 2001. The amounts were assessed by them at Rs.31,672/-, Rs.32,629/- and Rs.42,325/-, respectively. The petitioner opposed the applications by raising grounds of delay and disputing the entitlement of the respondents. Initially, the first respondent passed an ex parte order on 14.10.2004. On the applications filed by the petitioner, the said order was recalled and the matter was heard afresh, and the claims were ordered for a sum of Rs.7,998/-, Rs.8,318/- and Rs.11,550/-, respectively. The petitioner contends that the claims presented beyond the time prescribed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”), and the first respondent did not pass any order, condoning the delay, before undertaking discussion, on merits. It is also stated that, neither any finding was recorded, as to the nature of posts held by the respondents, nor the order passed by the appropriate Government, stipulating the wages, was indicated. The respondents filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the first respondent has assigned valid reasons for condonation of delay and the claims were determined on the basis of the orders issued by the appropriate Government. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents admit that the claims made by them were beyond the period of limitation, stipulated under Section 20(2) of the Act. Proviso to the said sub-section confers the power upon the first respondent to condone the delay, if satisfactory reasons are pleaded. It is represented that the respondents filed independent applications for condonation of delay. The record, however, does not disclose that any orders were passed condoning such delay. The observation of the first respondent that he is satisfied with the reasons for belated approach by the respondents cannot be equated to a specific order condoning the delay. Another aspect of the matter is that before any relief is granted under the Act, the Authority has to record specific findings as to the nature of posts held by the claimant and the wages applicable for that post. It is only when these two basic facts have determined, that the relief can be granted, by examining the period for which the wages were not paid, as per law. The impugned order is silent, on these aspects. The first respondent has fallen back upon the discussion undertaken by him in the order, dated 14.10.2004. Once he had recalled that order, he cannot rely upon those reasons. This Court is of the view that the matter needs to be disposed of afresh by the first respondent. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. In view of the fact that the claim made by the respondents is pending since long time, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.12.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ