KARUNAKARAN Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition arises under the Payment of Wages Act (Central Act IV of 1936).

(2.) The facts are almost undisputed. The workers were doing piece work in the Ananda Lakshmi Weaving Establishment during the year 1956 and they left the Establishment either during the last week of December 1956 or definitely on

(3.) The application before the Authority was filed only on 2nd December 1957. It should have been filed before the end of June 1957 to comply with the first proviso to S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. The second proviso to that sub-section authorises the Authority to admit an application presented after the period of six months, if the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. In the present case Ext. D1, which is a certificate issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Cannanore-II, shows that he and subsequently the District Labour Officer were trying to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between the management and the workers till October 1957; and their efforts having failed, the petition before the Authority was filed on 2nd December 1957. Those circumstances having been considered by the Authority, the Authority was satisfied that the respondents had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of six months. The objection taken by the learned advocate of the petitioner on this point is that the workers did not file an affidavit, nor did they file a petition for excusing the delay, and in those circumstances the Authority should not have acted merely on the basis of Ext. D1. May be that the Authority would have done better to have insisted on having an affidavit and a petition filed; but the failure to do that, in the circumstances disclosed in the present case, does not by itself vitiate the order of the Authority condoning the delay in making the application within the statutory period. The reason given by the Authority for being satisfied about the delay is a valid reason, right in law, and therefore this Court will not interfere with the order. Vide The West Coast Motor v. The District Magistrate, Ernakulam ( ILR 1961 (2) Ker. 637 ).