ORDER
G. Bikshapathy, J.
1. This batch of Six Writ Petitions is filed challenging the orders of the 1st respondent in condoning the delay of 777 days in presenting the application by the 2nd respondent under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner – management that 2nd respondent filed the applications claiming difference of minimum wages in respect of the workmen employed by the petitioners especially for the period from June 1, 1993 to July 17, 1995, while filing the said claim application, the 2nd respondent filed a Memo seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he took over the charge as Labour Officer, Circle-I, Ranga Reddy district on June 10, 1994 and he did not inspect the establishment prior to June 25, 1995. When he conducted inspection on June 25, 1995, he could find that the management did not pay minimum wages for the aforesaid period to its employees. Therefore, the Inspector submitted that there was a delay of two years, one month and seventeen day to be condoned in the interest of justice.
3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the management is that the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act (for short the Act) have not been complied with by the authority while condoning the delay. Further no evidence was adduced by the complainant Labour Inspector or the Workmen concerned and in the absence of such an evidence, the authority ought not to have condoned the delay.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent – Union Mr. Ravindranath submits that the authority need not render a detailed Judgment while condoning the delay. If it is satisfied that the claim could not be filed for certain valid reasons, it is open for the authority to condone the delay. Moreover it is a piece of beneficial legislation for which technicalities should not be insisted upon. Hence the learned counsel submits that the delay as condoned by the authority is (sic) not illegal and same cannot be challenged by the Management.
5. For proper appreciation of the issue, it is necessary to consider Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, wherein it is specified that claims arising out of the payment of less than minimum rates of wages are required to be filed within six months from the date the minimum wages became payable. However, in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 it is specified that it is open for the applicant to make an application beyond the time stipulated and to show satisfactory evidence that he could not approach the authority within time, the authority after coming to the conclusion that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application may condone the delay. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 20 is extracted below:
“Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period”.
6. In view of this proviso, it is necessary for the Authority to render a finding that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. I have scanned through the order of the learned Authority, but I could not find any material to show that he was satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not approaching the Authority within the time. Though he referred to various judgments which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue under consideration, I feel that the matter which ought to have been decided by the authority, has not been decided in proper perspective. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the Management had also examined one witness in their support, whereas none was examined for the respondents.
7. The Authority has been vested with the powers to condone the delay when the applications are made beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Act. At the same time the burden is cast on the applicant to satisfy the Authority that there was sufficient cause for not making the application in time. Equally the authority is required to satisfy itself that the applicant had sufficient cause. These are the statutory requirements and the Authorities are bound to record their satisfaction.
8. So long as there is no conclusion of the Authority that there is sufficient cause for not making the application in time, it would not be open for the Authority to condone the delay. I am not weighing the evidence available before the Authority, but nonetheless a finding has to be rendered establishing that there was sufficient cause for not making the application. I am not able to either identify or call out such a finding.
9. Under these circumstances I am inclined to set aside the order of the 1st respondent -Authority under Minimum Wages Act-cum-Joint Commissioner of Labour, A.P. Hyderabad, and remit the matter to him for fresh disposal in accordance with the law, it is open for the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.
10. Accordingly, all the six writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the matter be heard by the 1st respondent afresh after giving notice to the parties and taking evidence, if any desired by both the parties, in respect of their claims, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the 1st respondent shall pass order untrammelled by any observations made by this Court on the merits of the case.
11. With the above directions the writ petitions are disposed of No costs.
