MANAGEMENT THURAIPAKAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR Ï¿½II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Management of M.N.M. Jain Engineering College. THE second respondent is a trade union known as "THEn Indhiya Tharaivazhi Pokkuvarathu Uzhiyargal Sangam" represented by its Secretary. 31 Members of the second respondent trade union claim that they are workmen under the petitioner Management and they are also eligible for minimum wages as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. On behalf of the workmen, the second respondent Union made claim applications before the first respondent under the provisions of the said Act. But, there had occurred delay. THE number of days delay was wrongly described as 905 instead of 94 days in paragraph No.3 of the typed set of papers. Seeking to condone the said delay, the second respondent Union filed I.A.No.2 of 2006, before the first respondent. THE first respondent by order dated 16.03.2006, condoned the said delay. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) A detailed counter was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. In the said counter, it was contended that the Members of the second respondent Union are not at all entitled for minimum wages. But, the said question as to whether the members of the second respondent Union who are working under the petitioner Management are entitled for minimum wages or not, is a matter to be decided only in the main case and not in the delay condonation petition. The crux of the objection raised by the petitioner before the first respondent was that ignorance of law as pleaded by the second respondent is not an excuse and on that ground, the delay cannot be condoned. However, the said objection of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent and the first respondent accepted the said explanation and has condoned the delay.