Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12226 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1783 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- Authority Under Minimum Wages Act 1948 And Regional Labour Commissioner(Central)Kanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Nandan Ojha,Adesh Kumar Yadav,Akhand Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anurag Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1- Union of India and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 04.10.2024 whereby the claim of the petitioner made under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was dismissed on the ground that the said claim is beyond limitation. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that on account of non-payment of the wages, which was due and payable, steps were taken for reconciliation in the year 2021, however, reconciliation failed as is evident from the communication dated 23.08.2022, which is on record as Annexure no. 4. He further argues that thereafter for all the claims, one petition was filed in the year 2023, however, a communication was addressed to the petitioner to file separate claims through communication dated 06.02.2024 and in pursuance to the said guidance, separate claims were filed on 07.03.2024. The Tribunal while rejecting the application has not considered any of the said grounds of the petitioner pursuing the remedy of reconciliation and having filed joint claims in respect of all the claims. The power to condone the delay in filing the application is vested with the Authority by virtue of second proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act. 4. Despite the fact that the Authority was vested, prima facie, non consideration of the efforts for reconciliation and the petitioner having filed a joint claim earlier was neither considered nor decided by means of the impugned order. It is well settled that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act are socio beneficial legislation and generally the claimant is not well versed with the legal niceties, the beneficial aspect of the said provisions have to be considered liberally whereas by means of the impugned order, an unduly harsh order has been passed rejecting the claim. As the issue arises with regard to condonation of delay, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the filing of the counter affidavit as the issues are to be decided based upon interpretation of the statute and the material produced. In view thereof, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law on merits. It is further clarified that the claim filed by the petitioner shall be treated to be within the prescribed period of limitation and the delay in filing the claim is being condoned by this Court. 5. The petition is disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench