(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act,1948').
(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of pharmaceuticals. The 1st respondent was working as a Medical and Sales Representative in the petitioner Company, who was terminated from service. The 1st respondent filed Ext.P2 claim petition seeking to release an amount of Rs.3,58,982.00, which is the minimum wages due to him as per the provisions of the Act, 1948.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 petition is barred by limitation, in as much as Sec. 20(2) of the Act, 1948 mandates that an application/claim petition is to be filed within six months from the date on which minimum wages became payable, though on sufficient reasons to be shown the delay could be condoned. But in the present case, no valid reason has been stated for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. It is further contended that no amount is due to the 1st respondent, and the 2nd respondent, while issuing Ext.P7 order, has not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner in a proper manner and that he has not given any reason for condoning the delay and allowing the claim petition. It is also contended that the 1 st respondent failed to prove his claim by adducing proper evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the salary statement as Ext.P8, which was not accepted by the authority as the same was not signed and sealed by a competent person. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P9, which is the application filed by the 1st respondent before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, contends that the petitioner is taking different stands regarding the last drawn monthly wages.