CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6842 OF 1993 Birendra Bharti son of Nawal Kishore Bharti, resident of village Jhorhat Ke Mathia, P.S. Manjhi, District – Saran. ----------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director Agriculture, Labour & Appellate Authority ( Under Minimum Wages Act 1916) Bihar, Patna. 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Agricultural Labour)-cum-Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948, Saran Commissionery at Chapra. 4. Labour Enforcement Offier, Manjhi, District – Saran. 5. (1) Matur Rai (2) Dharam Nath Rai (3) Chhathu Rai (4) Hiralal Rai (5) Lakchmina Devi D/o Kishun Rai (6) Dipi Devi W/o Late Kishun Rai All resident of village Ghorhat ke Mathia, P.O. - Ghorhat P.S. - Manjhi, District – Saran. -------------- Respondents. ------------------ For The Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Adv. Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava, Adv. For The Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha G.A. 2 Mr. Uday Bhan Singh J.C. to G.A. 2 --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ************* A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 04.06.1993, contained in Annexure – 5, which is the order in appeal and the order dated 15.05.1992 Annexure – 4 which is the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Agricultural Labour)-cum-Designated Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The short submission made at the bar is that both the orders are - 2 - fit to be set aside on the ground that the limitation prescribed under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act in six months. The claim of the claimant was filed on 24.08.1991 and nonpayment complained of relates to month of November and December 1990. Since the application was time barred, the order rendered without condoning the delay without an application and reason shown is fit to be set aside. There is breach of the statutory bar in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision rendered in the case of Awadh Lal Sah Versus the State of Bihar & others reported in 1983 BLJ 461. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was incumbent upon the Assistant Labour Commissioner to examine the application and claim of the claimant from this point of view, but he ignored and passed the order on merits. On objection having been made before the Appellate Authority, he has brushed aside the objection on the ground that this objection ought to have been taken at the level of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The question of limitation is a question of law, therefore, it can be taken at any point of time. More so, it was also incumbent upon the statutory authorities who examine the claim, from this point of view, whether the - 3 - same was in order and within the statutory time prescribed in this regard. The writ application is allowed on this limited question. Annexure – 4 & 5 stands quashed accordingly. Patna High Court The 4th Day of December,2008, NAFR/AFR, Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)