9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions under the Minimum Wages Act regarding the timeline for filing applications for minimum wages and other amounts payable. - Exercise of discretion by the Authority to condone delays in presenting applications under the Act. - Scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution regarding decisions made by the Authority. - Application of legal principles in determining sufficient cause for delay in filing applications under the Act. Analysis: The judgment in question involves an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The primary issue addressed is the interpretation of Section 20(2) of the Act, specifically focusing on the timeline for filing applications for minimum wages and other amounts payable. The second proviso to Section 20(2) allows for the admission of applications after the prescribed period of six months if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The court emphasizes that the discretion of the Authority to condone delays should be exercised judiciously, in line with principles of justice and fairness, similar to the exercise of discretion under the Indian Limitation Act. Furthermore, the judgment delves into the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution concerning decisions made by the Authority. While the High Court possesses the power of judicial superintendence over the tribunal, its interference is limited to cases where the exercise of discretion by the Authority is capricious, perverse, or ultra vires. The court highlights that the High Court should not review the discretion of the Authority unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice, as observed in previous legal precedents. The court analyzed the facts of the case, where employees had delayed filing their application for overtime wages under the Act. The employees had relied on assurances from government inspectors and superiors regarding the resolution of their grievances, leading to the delay in presenting the application. The Authority, after considering all circumstances, found that the delay was not due to negligence or inaction on the part of the employees but stemmed from a mistaken belief in the intervention of government officials for relief. The court upheld the decision of the Authority to condone the delay only for claims subsequent to January 1, 1961, based on a thorough review of the relevant facts and circumstances. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Article 136. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding the discretion of the Authority in such matters and the limited scope of judicial review in cases involving the exercise of administrative discretion under statutory provisions.
|
