- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat . v. Ramgiri Gosavi And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
On 19 March 1963, Respondent 1 filed an application on behalf of 36 employees of the Lonand Grampanchayat before the Authority constituted under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The employees sought directions for payment of overtime wages and damages. Several claims extended back two years and two months; a few stretched as far as seven years and nine months.
By order dated 18 September 1963, the Authority agreed to entertain only those claims arising after 1 January 1961, holding that “sufficient cause” existed for not filing the application within the statutory six-month period prescribed in the first proviso to Section 20(2).
The Lonand Grampanchayat challenged this order by a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court summarily dismissed that petition. The Grampanchayat then obtained special leave and brought the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Authority under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act correctly exercised its discretion in condoning delay for claims arising after 1 January 1961 upon a finding of “sufficient cause”.
- Whether the Bombay High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, erred in refusing to interfere with the Authority’s discretionary order.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution with the concurrent determinations of the Authority and the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Keighley case (140 = 77 ER 1134) | Judicial discretion must be exercised “with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense, and sound judgment”. | Cited to underscore the standards guiding the Authority’s power to condone delay. |
| Krishna v. Chathappan (Madras HC) | The words “sufficient cause” in limitation provisions should receive a liberal construction where no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is shown. | Formed the template for interpreting “sufficient cause” in the second proviso to Section 20(2). |
| Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumoni Mangaraj (1955) 1 SCR 140 | Approved the liberal approach to “sufficient cause” articulated in Krishna v. Chathappan. | Reinforced the permissive reading adopted by the Authority and accepted by the Supreme Court. |
| Ramlal, Motilal & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762 | Further approval of the liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause”. | Supported the view that delay could be condoned when justice so demanded. |
| Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam (1958) SCR 1240 | Article 227 jurisdiction is confined to ensuring that the tribunal acts within its authority. | Used to delimit the High Court’s—and hence the Supreme Court’s—scope of interference with the Authority’s discretion. |
| Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana & Ors. (1960) 1 SCR 875 | Findings of fact by an authority under a similarly worded provision (Payment of Wages Act, 1936) are generally immune from review under Article 227. | Cited to justify non-interference with the Authority’s factual finding that “sufficient cause” existed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court noted that the second proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act mirrors Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consistent with Krishna v. Chathappan and its later approvals, “sufficient cause” should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.
2. The Authority had found that, beginning 2 January 1961, employees persistently approached inspectors and superior government officers for relief. They relied on assurances that administrative action would secure payment, delaying resort to Section 20(2). The Supreme Court held that this reliance constituted “sufficient cause” and did not indicate negligence or inaction.
3. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited. Following Nagendra Nath Bora and Sitaram Ramcharan, the Court emphasised that a discretion judicially exercised will not be disturbed unless capricious, perverse, or ultra vires.
4. The Authority had refused to condone delay for periods before 1 January 1961, demonstrating a calibrated, fact-based approach. No error apparent on the record, excess of jurisdiction, or grave miscarriage of justice was shown.
5. Consequently, the High Court’s refusal to interfere was proper, and no ground existed under Article 136 for the Supreme Court to upset concurrent findings.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed.
The Authority’s order condoning delay for claims post-1 January 1961 stands affirmed. The immediate consequence is that the employees’ restricted claims may proceed on merits, while earlier periods remain barred. The Court set no new legal precedent but reaffirmed the settled principles governing “sufficient cause” and the restrained scope of supervisory review.
Bachawat, J.— On March 19, 1963 Respondent 1 on behalf of 36 employees of the Lonand Grampanchayat applied to the Authority appointed under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a direction upon the Grampanchayat to pay to the employees overtime wages and damages. A number of employees 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 Authority held that the application should be entertained in respect of the claims for the period subsequent to January 1, 1961 as the employees had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period of six months. A petition challenging this order under Article 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.
2. 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 Section 20(2) of the Act to the Authority appointed under Section 20(1). The first proviso to Section 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 payable”. The second proviso to Section 20(2) is in these terms:
“Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”
3. The Authority has a discretion to condone the delay in presenting the application provided sufficient cause for the entire delay is shown to its satisfaction. This discretion like other judicial discretion must be exercised with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense, and sound judgment. The discretion is to know through law what is just, see Keighley case 140=77 ER 1134.
4. The wording of the second proviso is similar to the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In Krishna v. Chathappan the Madras High Court indicated in the following passage how the discretion under Section 5 should be exercised:
“We think that Section 5 gives the Courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words ‘sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant.”
This decision received the approval, of this Court in Dinabandhu Sahu v. Jadumoni Mangaraj (1955) 1 SCR 140 and Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotetal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762. The words “sufficient cause” in the second proviso to Section 20(2) should receive a similar liberal construction.
5. No appeal lies from an order of the Authority under Section 20. But the High Court is vested with the power of judicial superintendence over the tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution. This power is not greater than the power under Article 226 and is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority, see Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam (1958) SCR 1240. The High Court will not review the discretion of the Authority judicially exercised, but it may interfere if the exercise of the discretion is capricious or perverse or ultra vires. In Sitaram Ramcharan, etc. v. M.N Nagarshana (1960) 1 SCR 875 this Court held that a finding of fact by the authority under the similarly worded second proviso to Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 could not be challenged in a petition under Article 227. The High Court may refuse to interfere under Article 227 unless there is grave miscarriage of justice.
6. In the present case the Authority found that since January 2, 1961 the employees were making complaints to the government authorities regarding non-payment of overtime wages. On January 2, 1961 the employees wrote to the Inspector, Minimum Wages, government labour office, Sangli, complaining of overtime work and asking for directions on the appellant to comply with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. A reminder was sent to him on January 11, 1961. On January 18, 1961 the Inspector wrote that the matter was being followed up. On April 22, 1961 the Inspector visited Lonand and directed the appellant to comply with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the rules made thereunder. On April 26, 1961 the Inspector communicated this direction to the employees. On January 1, 1962 the employees lodged a complaint of overtime work with the Commissioner, Poona Division, and asked for a direction for payment of the arrears of overtime wages. On January 3, 1962 the Commissioner wrote to the employees that the matter was receiving attention and their application had been sent to the Collector of Satara for disposal. Later in August/September 1962 and early 1963 the Block Development Officer came to Lonand and made inquiries. The revenue officers appointed as inspectors under the government notification dated May 4, 1955 are under the administrative control of Commissioner and Collector. The inspectors have no power to give relief under Section 20(2) but they have large powers of supervision and control under Section 19 of the Act. The employees relied upon the assurances of the inspectors and their superiors that proper steps would be taken for the remedy of their grievances and relying upon those assurances, they refrained from taking steps under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the employees were not guilty of inaction or negligence and the entire delay in presenting the application was due to their honest though mistaken belief that the relief of overtime wages would be granted to them through the intervention of the inspectors and their superior officers. It is not shown that in condoning the delay the Authority acted arbitrarily or capriciously or in excess of its jurisdiction or that it committed any error apparent on the face of the record. In the application under Section 20(2), some of the employees claimed overtime wages for periods prior to January 1, 1961. The Authority declined to condone the delay in respect of claims for the period prior to January 1, 1961. On a careful consideration of the relevant materials, the Authority condoned the delay in respect of claims subsequent to January 1, 1961 only. The Court cannot interfere merely because it might take a different view of the facts and exercise the discretion differently. It is not shown that the impugned order led to grave miscarriage of justice. The High Court refused to interfere under Article 227. We think that this is not a fit case for interference by us under Article 136.
7. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert