ASHOK HOTEL Vs. ADITYA PRASAD NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition filed by the management seeks to assail the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in Claim Application No.MWA 138/2016. Under the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 67,546/- to the respondent along with compensation of Rs.50/- towards unpaid salary.

(2.) The impugned order is sought to be assailed primarily on the ground that since the claim made by the respondent workman was for the period between 08.12.2013 and 18.04.2014, the claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation as it had been filed beyond the statutory period of six months that too without filing any application seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim was filed in September, 2015 which was clearly beyond the six months period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1947 (,,the Act). He submits that this belated claim petition moved by the respondent without even seeking condonation of delay, could not have been without the competent authority having any occasion to examine whether any case had been made out to condone the delay in filing the claim. In support of which contention he places reliance on the decision of this Court in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. vs. Digvijay Cement 154 (2008) DLT 80, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Banglore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2008 (117) FLR 1172 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mathuradas Mohota College of Science vs. R.T. Borkar and Ors. 1996 (98) BOMLR 718.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents claim was not time barred as the petitioner was habituated to making belated payments of overtime allowance. He submits that since the last payment of overtime allowances, for the period after 08.12.2013, had only been made in March 2015, The cause of action for claiming overtime continued till March, 2015. Therefore, the claim, having been filed in September 2015, was well within the statutorily prescribed period of six months for preferring a claim and was, well within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 of the Act. He further submits that since the plea of the claim petition being barred by limitation was never raised by the petitioner before the competent authority, the respondent had no occasion to address this plea or file an appropriate application or documents to show that his claim was within limitation or in any event the delay, if any, was liable to be condoned. He, however, concedes that the documents which show that the petitioner used to habitually make belated payment of overtime allowance to its employees were not placed for the competent authority before it passed the impugned order and therefore submits that if this court were to agree with the petitioners contentions, the matter be remanded to the competent authority to enable the respondent to file the requisite application with supporting documents.