CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10888 OF 1993 1. Sayed Ali Azkar. 2. Sayed Ali Mazhar 3. Sayed Shamim Akbar All sons of late Sayed Ali Akbar, residents of Akbar Manzil, Madhepura, Police Station and District – Madhepura. ------------------- Petitoners. Versus 1. Kismat Ali son of late Bahadur Ali, resident of village and P.O. Hathiondha, Police Station – Behariganj, District – Madhepura. 2. The State of Bihar, through the Inspector of Labour, Uda Kishanganj, Block, District – Madhepura. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Uda- Kishanganj, Madhepura. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Uda-Kishanganj. 5. The Additional Collector, Madhepura. ------------------- Respondents. For The Petitioner : Mr. Alok Chandra Prasad, Adv. For The Respondent : (SC3) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***************** A. K. Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. A claim was made by respondent no.1 under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Grievance was that he had not been paid his minimum wages for the period 2nd January, 1932 till 1942, another period is February, 1942 to January, 1952 and the third period is February 1952 till December 1983. The claim under the Act was entertained by the concerned authority and the liability fastened on the petitioners. Their appeal against the impugned order contained - 2 - in Annexure – 4 was rejected by the appellate authority by Annexure – 5. The two orders therefore, are under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application itself was hopelessly time barred and misplaced. A personal dispute has been given the colour of breach of Minimum Wages Act and the competent authority without even examining the matter and stating the reason whether such stale claim could be entertained by him has held in favour of the private respondent. Proviso to section 20(2) itself lays down the time frame of six months to lodge a claim from the date on which the Minimum Wage or other amount become payable. The claim and the period for which the claim relates has been taken note of this court of the earlier part of the order. It even relates to the time frame, when the Minimum Wages Act 1948, had not even been enacted or had come into play. The origin of the dispute is in 1932 and the claim has been made till the year 1983. The Court has gone through the order contained in Annexure – 4 as well as the appellate order rendered in the matter. The court is constrained to record that a short shrift manner has been adopted by the Statutory Authority in allowing the claim of the kind which on the face of it could not have been entertained. Limitation has a vital bearing in adjudication of such disputes and an application made beyond the period - 3 - prescribed under the statute is fatal to the claim as has been held in the case of Awadh Lal Sah Versus the State of Bihar & others reported in 1983 BLJ 461. The writ application is allowed and Annexure – 4 & 5 stands quashed. Patna High Court The 4th Day of December, 2008, NAFR/AFR, Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)