Delhi High Court
J. Kumar-Crtv Jv vs Regional Labour Commissioner & ... on 22 April, 2021
$~A-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22.04.2021
+ W.P.(C) 3807/2021
JKUMAR - CRTV JV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. J.P. Cama Sr. Advocate with
Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Ms. Suruchi
Kumar and Mr. Sharad Agarwal,
Advocates.
versus
REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vaibhav Maheshwari and
Mr. Aadarsh Prakash, Advocates
for Mr. Rohit Pandey, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
JYOTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
CM No. 11480/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3807/2021 and CM No. 11479/2021
1. Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 and in
the alternative, a writ or a direction to Respondent No.1 to provide
adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, after remanding the
matter, for consideration afresh.
2. Petition arises out of an order passed by the Competent Authority
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority').
3. As per the case set out in the petition, Petitioner is a Company
engaged in the business of construction projects for various entities and in
the course of its business, undertook a project for Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation in 2014. For the said project, thousands of employees were
employed and were paid full wages for the period of their employment,
which were above the minimum wages as prescribed under the Act.
4. Upon completion of the project and having no requirement to
employ all the employees further, Petitioner terminated the contracts of
employment of certain employees, as per applicable laws. However, as an
afterthought and a retaliation to the termination, approximately 51
employees, represented through Respondent No. 2, filed complaints
alleging non-payment of minimum wages as prescribed under the Act as
well as non-payment of overtime.
5. Complaints were divided into two sets by the concerned Authority,
i.e., MWA No. 179/2018 comprising of 21 employees and MWA No.
180/2018 comprising of 30 employees. Present petition deals with the
MWA No. 179/2018.
6. Petitioner, vide its letter dated 25.10.2018, responded to the notice
issued by the Authority and raised a preliminary objection that the claims
of minimum wages dated back to 2015 and were thus barred by limitation
as prescribed under Section 20 (2) of the Act, i.e., six months from the
date the claims allegedly became payable.
7. Petitioner also filed a written statement to the claim petition, on
merits, denying the non-payment of minimum wages under the provisions
of the Act and provided documents to that effect, to the extent they were
readily available at their Office at Delhi. In so far as other documents
such as attendance registers, etc., were concerned, time was sought by the
Petitioner to produce the documents as the same were lying at the
registered Office in Mumbai.
8. Hearings were conducted by the Authority on various dates during
the year 2019-2020, last one being on 20.01.2020, when the parties were
directed to put forth material in support of their claims and the next date
of hearing was fixed as 12.03.2020. However, on account of nationwide
lockdown due to pandemic COVID-19, an adjournment was sought by
the counsel for Respondent No.2 on 12.03.2020.
9. Vide order dated 12.03.2020, Authority listed the matter on
17.04.2020 for arguments, with liberty to the Petitioner to file evidence.
However, the matter was never argued thereafter by either party and
effective opportunity of hearing was denied to the Petitioner.
10. Mr. J.P. Cama, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, instructed by Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, assails the impugned order
on the ground that Respondent No.1 has admitted the claims filed by the
employees despite being barred under the provisions of Section 20 (2) of
the Act, wherein a limitation period of six months is provided,
commencing from the date the claims become payable. Although the
proviso enables a party to seek condonation of delay, but an application is
required to be filed by the Applicant, showing sufficient cause for the
delay, which was not done in the present case. While Mr. Cama concedes
that from the inspection of the record before the Authority, it is evident
that an application seeking condonation of delay was filed, but contends
that a copy was not given to the Petitioner herein, enabling the Petitioner
to file a response thereto. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh
and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685, wherein it was held that a specific
application is required to be filed indicating sufficient reasons which are
adequate and legal, for seeking condonation of delay. Delay cannot be
condoned by any Court on misplaced sympathies or for reasons which are
not cogent.
11. Without prejudice to the said contention, Mr. Cama submits that
even on merits, Petitioner has a strong case and in case sufficient
opportunity was granted to place on record the relevant documents, more
particularly, attendance sheets and the payment vouchers/slips, Petitioner
would have established that wages, as due and payable, were paid to the
workmen, in accordance with the Act and nothing was outstanding.
12. Issue notice.
13. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Vaibhav Maheshwari and Mr. Aadarsh Prakash,
Advocates enter appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and accept
notice.
14. With the consent of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner and counsels for the Respondents, the writ petition is taken up
for final hearing and decided.
15. Learned counsels appearing for Respondent No. 2 vehemently and
strenuously oppose the present petition. It is submitted that it is incorrect
for the Petitioner to argue that the application seeking condonation of
delay did not disclose sufficient or cogent reasons, enabling the Authority
to condone the delay. Learned counsels submit that the application
disclosed sufficient cause for condonation of delay, one of them being
that the workmen were apprehensive of their termination in case they
raised any dispute at that stage and this caused a delay beyond the
limitation period of six months. It is also argued that it has to be kept in
mind that claims are under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which is a
welfare Legislation, enacted for a class, which does not have equal
bargaining power with mighty Managements and in that background, the
application and the reasons furnished therein must receive a liberal
construction and approach. It is disputed that the application was not
supplied to the Petitioner and that the record would testify this stand of
Respondent No.2.
16. Responding to the argument of opportunity of hearing, learned
counsels for Respondent No.2 submit that sufficient opportunity was
granted to the Petitioner to place on record the documents it wished to
rely upon. This is clearly reflected from the impugned order itself, where
the Authority records that since the matter relates to payment of alleged
outstanding wages, an order was passed during the previous hearing that
if both parties produced documents to substantiate their claims, leading of
evidence would not be required. Both parties were directed to produce
the documents on which they have preferred their claims, i.e., attendance
cards, etc., containing the hours for the work period in question. It was
also mentioned in the said order that if the parties failed to produce the
documents, it would be presumed that they do not possess any document
to substantiate their stand. It is thus argued that having not availed of the
opportunity granted to file the documents, it is not open to the Petitioner
to contend before this Court that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not
granted.
17. I have heard Mr. J.P. Cama learned Senior Advocate with Mr.
Shashwat Bajpai, counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rohit Pandey, Mr.
Vaibhav Maheshwari with Mr. Aadarsh Prakash, learned counsels for
Respondent No.2.
18. Present petition has its genesis in a claim filed by Respondent No.
2/Universal Proutist Labour Federation, before the concerned Authority
under Section 20(1) of the Act. Section 20(2) of the Act provides that
where an employee has any claim under sub-section (1), the employee or
any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized
in writing to act on his behalf, or any inspector, or any person acting with
the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may
apply to such Authority for a direction under sub-section (3). Proviso to
sub-section (2) provides a period of six months from the date the
minimum wages or any other amount becomes payable, to prefer a claim
under sub-section (1). Second proviso to sub-section (2), however,
provides that any application can be admitted even after the period of six
months, provided the Applicant satisfies the Authority that he had
sufficient cause for not making the application within the limitation
period.
19. There is no doubt that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a welfare
Legislation and the Authority must be liberal in condoning the delay in
filing claims before the Competent Authority as the underlying intent of
the welfare Legislations is to be kept on the canvass in the background
while deciding such applications. However, this Court cannot overlook
the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, which mandate
that while deciding an application seeking condonation of delay,
Authority must satisfy itself from the reasons set out in application,
whether 'sufficient cause', which prevented the Applicant from
approaching the Authority within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e.,
six months, is made out. The satisfaction has to be based on cogent and
legal material on record in support of the reasons set out to justify delay
and the order condoning the delay must reflect such satisfaction and spell
out reasons which weighed with the Authority to condone the delay.
20. I have carefully perused the impugned order. No reasons for
condoning the delay are discernible, save and except, that the workmen
were apprehensive of termination, if they raised any dispute, with regard
to wages, with the management and that the Act is a welfare Legislation.
By a somewhat sketchy and a cryptic order delay has been condoned and
this Court is unable to decipher what weighed with the Authority to
conclude that the claimants had made out 'sufficient cause' that prevented
them, for over 3 years, to approach the Authority. To say the least, order
does not even refer to the grounds, if any, set out in the application, to
explain the delay of 3 years, as the expression used is 'bird eye
examination'. Reasons are the heart and soul of an order and reflect
application of mind and even on this touchstone, impugned order is
unsustainable, being bereft of reasons. Interestingly, the Authority places
reliance on a judgment of Karnataka High Court at Bangalore, but there is
no mention of the Title/Case Number or even the date of decision of the
said case. How the judgement was applicable to the present case, is
anybody's guess. No doubt that the claims were preferred under a welfare
Legislation, but the provisions of the Act itself require the applicant to set
out 'sufficient cause' for seeking condonation of delay and a reciprocal
obligation is cast on the Authority to apply its mind and see if cogent
reasons have been furnished making out sufficient cause. The impugned
order does not meet the said threshold and deserves to be set aside.
Relevant part of the impugned order is as under:-
"A bird eye examination of the condonation petition filed by
the applicants reveals that they could not file their claim
application earlier due to the fear of their termination though
they were discriminated with similarly placed workmen under
the same employer. The bonafide case mentioned seems to be
plausible but at the same such a long period of 4-5 years does
not look appropriate to decide whether a claim application is
required to be filed. In this respect views of several upper
courts may vary but I find that if delay to the extent of 3 years is
condoned considering an order of Hon'ble High Court of
judicature at Bangalore. It will remain justified as the M.W.Act,
1948 is a welfare legislation where condonation may not
interfere in justice to poor workmen. Hence the period of up to
3 years is condoned and the claim of the applicant is allowed
for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.5.2018.
In the fact and circumstances mentioned above, contradictions
are evident and if there is any doubt its benefits should go to the
applicant."
21. Accordingly, the order dated 26.02.2021 is set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the concerned Authority for fresh adjudication, both
on the question of limitation as well as merits, in case the issue of
limitation is decided in favour of Respondent No. 2.
22. Petitioner herein is given liberty to file reply to the application
seeking condonation of delay and Respondent No.2 herein shall be at
liberty to file rejoinder to the said reply. Opportunity is also granted to
both parties to file before the Authority, relevant documents and lead
evidence in support of their respective claims/stands as well as file
written submissions. After considering the pleadings and documents on
record, a fresh decision shall be taken by Respondent No.1, in accordance
with law.
23. Both sides pray that a time schedule be fixed before the Authority
for deciding the matter. Taking into account the special circumstances
that are prevalent due to pandemic COVID-19 and its impact on the
functioning of the Courts, it is deemed fit to direct that the entire exercise
from taking the replies/documents on record till passing of the final order
shall be completed by Respondent No.1 within a period of four months
from today.
24. Petition is disposed of in the above terms, along with the pending
application.
25. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case or with respect to limitation and the concerned
Authority shall decide the matter, uninfluenced by any observation in the
present order.
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 22, 2021
yo
