Delhi High Court
Rajender Kumar vs Dy. Labour Commissioner & Anr. on 9 November, 2020
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.11.2020
09:18:49
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th November, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 4534/2020 & CM APPL. 16361/2020
RAJENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate (M-
9810169432)
versus
DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate. (M:
9811062351)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 21st February, 2020, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter 'Authority'). By
the said order, the Petitioner's claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 (hereinafter 'the Act') has been dismissed as being barred by
limitation.
3. The Petitioner was working as a security guard, appointed by the
Contractor/Respondent No.2 and his allegation against the Contractor was
that he was not paid minimum wages for various periods i.e. 1st July, 2015 to
1st October, 2015, 1st November, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 and 1st April, 2016
to 1st July, 2018. The claim was filed by the Petitioner on 27th June, 2019,
along with an application for condonation of delay. However, the Authority
held that no sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay in filing the
claims under Section 20 of the Act and the same was dismissed as barred by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:09.11.2020 22:03
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.11.2020
09:18:49
limitation.
4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Authority has completely erred in dismissing the claim on the ground of delay
as the delay can always be condoned if sufficient cause is shown as per the
proviso to Section 20(2) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat vs Ramgiri Gosavi &
Anr. [AIR 1968 SC 222]. Mr. Mehrotra, ld. counsel on the other hand submits
that even if the delay is condonable, the claim should be restricted to a period
of three years.
5. A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that the first proviso requires
the Applicant to file the application, within six months from the date when
the minimum wages became payable. However, the second proviso also
makes it clear that after the expiry of the said period, if the Applicant satisfies
the Authority that there was sufficient cause, the delay can be condoned. In
Sarpanch (supra) the Supreme Court observed:
"3. The Authority has a discretion to condone
the delay in presenting the application provided
sufficient cause for the entire delay is shown to its
satisfaction. This discretion like other judicial
discretion must be exercised with vigilance and
circumspection according to justice,
commonsense, and sound judgment. The discretion
is to know through law what is just, see Keighley's
case."
The above legal position has thereafter been reiterated in a number of
decisions both by the Supreme Court and this Court.
6. It is observed that there is no discussion in the impugned order as to
whether there was sufficient cause for the delay at all. Moreover, the entire
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:09.11.2020 22:03
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.11.2020
09:18:49
claim of the Applicant/Petitioner herein cannot be held to be barred inasmuch
the Authority would have to consider as to whether the claim can be restricted
for a period prior to the filing of the claim. There is no discussion on this
aspect as well. The Authority has simply proceeded on the basis that there is
no sufficient cause and the claim has been dismissed.
7. Further, considering the fact that the Petitioner is a security guard
whose monthly wages were only Rs. 5,485/-, it cannot be held that shortage
of money with the Applicant cannot be a sufficient ground for condoning the
delay by itself. Coming from a lower stratum of society, the Petitioner could
have been facing financial crunch, in order to engage lawyers or to file claims
and to approach the Authority. The Authority is expected to be compassionate
in such circumstances, while proceeding in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set
aside. The matter shall be reconsidered by the Authority as to whether the
delay is condonable in accordance with the settled legal position and if not,
whether the claim needs to be restricted to any specific period.
9. Parties to appear before the Minimum Wages Authority on 7th
December, 2020.
10. The petition is allowed in the above terms. All pending applications are
disposed of.
11. Copy of this order be intimated by the Registry to the Deputy Labour
Commissioner (North East District) under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
(Add:- Vishwakarma Nagar Jhilmil Colony, Delhi-110095) by e-mail as well.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 9, 2020/Rahul / A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:09.11.2020 22:03
