SARPANCH, . LONAND GRAMPANCHAYAT versus RAMGIRI GOSAVI & ANR.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 20-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SARPANCH, . LONAND GRAMPANCRAYAT 
v. 
RAMGIRI GOSA VI & ANR. 
April 20, 1967 
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ,) 
Minimum Wages ·Act, 1948 s. 20(1) and (2)-Authority 
under s. 
20(2) exercising discretion condoning de/JJy-Whether circumstance fusti· · 
fied interference by superior court in exercise of discretion. 
On March 19, 1963 the first respondent, on behalf of some employees 
of the Grampanchayat, applied to the authority appointed under s. 20(1) 
of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for a direction upon the Orampan· 
chayat to pay to the employees certain overtime wages, etc. 
The Authority found that since January 2, 1961, the employees had 
been making complaints to the Government authorities regarding non-
payment of overtime wages and as a result, directions were given from 
time to tim'e by the Government Officers concerned to the appellant to 
comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder; 
that the officers assured the. employees from time to time that the matter 
' w•• receiving their attention and the employees, relying upon these a8'ur-
ances, refrained from making the application within 
six months as re· 
quired under the first PfOViso to. s. 20(2). By its order of September 18, 
.1963, in exercise of the power conferred . by the second proviso to s. 
20(2) the authority therefore 
condoned the delay in the filing of the 
application on the ground that the employees had remained in the honest 
though mistaken belief that relief would be granted to them through the 
intervention of the officers and held that the application 'should be ~nter· 
tained in respect of'the claims for the period subsequent to January I, 
1961. A petition challenging this order. under Art. 227 of the Constitu-
tion was summarily dismissed by the High Court. 
· 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The expression 
"sufficient cause" 
in the second proviso to 
s. 20(2) should .receive the same liberal interpretation as in s. S of the 
Indian Limitation Act. It was not shown that in 
condoning the delay 
Oie Authority had acted arbitrarily or capriciously or in excess of its 
jurisdiction or that it committed any error apparent on the face of the 
record. This Court could not interfere under Art. 136 merely becailse 
it might take a different. view of the facts and 
exercise its discretion 
differently. [776 B;. 777 C-D] 
Case law referred to. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 87 of-
1966. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appeal by special leave from the· judgment and order dated 
November 20, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil 
Application No.1886 of 1963. 
H 
H. 11. Gokhale and R. Gopalakris/man, for the appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
"E" 
GRAMPANCHAYAT v. RAMGIRI (Bachawat, !.) 
775 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bacbllwat, J. 
On March 19, 1963 respondent No. 1 on behalf 
of 36 employees of the Lonand Grampanchayat applied to the 
Authority appointed under s. 20( 1) of the Minimum Wages A1.;t, 
1948 for a direction upon lihe Grampanchayat to pay to the em-
ployees overtime wages and damages. A number of employees 
B 
claimed overtime wages from October 23, 1960 for a period of 
two years two months and nine days. 
One employee claimed 
wages for a period of seven years and nine months; one claimed 
wages for six years and ten months and another claimed wages for 
three years. 
By an order dated September 18, 1963 the Autho-
rity held that the application should be entertained in respect of 
c 
the claims for the period subsequent to January I, 1961 as the 
employees had sufficient cause for not making the application 
within the prescribed period of six months. A p!Jiition challeng-
ing this order under Art. 227 of the Constitution was summarily 
dismissed by the Bombay High Court. From the order of the 
High Court, the present appeal has been filed by special leave. 
D 
An application for a direction on the employer to pay minimum 
wages and other amounts payable under the. Minimum Wages Act 
may be made under s. 20(2) of the Act to the Authority appoint-
ed under s. 20(1 ). The first proviso to s. 20(2) requires that 
"every such application shall be presented within. six months from 
the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became 
2 
payable". The second proviso to s. 20(2) is in these terms :-
F 
G 
B 
"Provided further that any application may be ad-
mitted after the said period of six m9nths when•the appli-
cant satisfies the Authority that he had 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.