ORDER T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition arises under the Payment of Wages Act (Central Act IV of 1936). The respondents, namely ten workers of the Ananda Lakshmi Weaving Establishment, Azhikode, filed an application under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act against the petitioner, who is the manager of the said Weaving - Establishment, for wages in lieu of annual leave, which they were entitled to under section 79 of the Factories Act. The ex officio 1st Class Magistrate, Tellicherry, who is the Authority constituted under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 319.77 on account of leave wages and Rs. 50 as compensation. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge of Tellicherry, who confirmed the decision of the Payment of Wages Authority and the revision is against that order. 2. The facts are almost undisputed. The workers were doing piece work in the Ananda Lakshmi Weaving Establishment during the year 1956 and they left the Establishment either during the last week of December 1956 or definitely on 6th January 1957. All of them worked for sufficient number of days in 1956 to entitle them for leave with wages as laid down by section 79 of the Factories Act. Only two contentions have been pressed before me by the learned advocate of the petitioner; they are (1) that the application before the Payment of Wages Authority was barred by limitation, as it was not filed within six months from the date on which the wages became due and (2) that the workers did not apply for leave before they left the Establishment as contemplated by S.79(ii) of the Factories Act and therefore they are not entitled to leave wages. 3. The application before the Authority was filed only on 2nd December 1957. It should have been filed before the end of June 1957 to comply with the first proviso to section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. The second proviso to that sub-section authorises the Authority to admit an application presented after the period of six months, if the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. In the present case Ext. The second proviso to that sub-section authorises the Authority to admit an application presented after the period of six months, if the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. In the present case Ext. D1, which is a certificate issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Cannanore-II, shows that he and subsequently the District Labour Officer were trying to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between the management and the workers till October 1957; and their efforts having failed, the petition before the Authority was filed on 2nd December 1957. Those circumstances having been considered by the Authority, the Authority was satisfied that the respondents had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of six months. The objection taken by the learned advocate of the petitioner on this point is that the workers did not file an affidavit, nor did they file a petition for excusing the delay, and in those circumstances the Authority should not have acted merely on the basis of Ext. D1. May be that the Authority would have done better to have insisted on having an affidavit and a petition filed; but the failure to do that, in the circumstances disclosed in the present case, does not by itself vitiate the order of the Authority condoning the delay in making the application within the statutory period. The reason given by the Authority for being satisfied about the delay is a valid reason, right in law, and therefore this Court will not interfere with the order. Vide The West Coast Motor v. The District Magistrate, Ernakulam (I. L. R. 1961(2) Kerala 637). 4. The next objection appears to be more substantial. Section 79(i) of the Factories Act lays down that a worker who has worked for 240 days or more in a factory during one calendar year shall be entitled to leave with wages during the next calendar year for a number of days calculated at a particular rate. 4. The next objection appears to be more substantial. Section 79(i) of the Factories Act lays down that a worker who has worked for 240 days or more in a factory during one calendar year shall be entitled to leave with wages during the next calendar year for a number of days calculated at a particular rate. Sub-section (ii) of Section 79 provides that if the employment of a worker, who is entitled to leave under sub-section (i), is terminated by the employer before the worker has taken the entire leave to which he is entitled, or if having applied for and having not been granted such leave, the worker quits his employment before he has taken the leave, then the employer shall pay him wages for the period of leave which the worker is entitled to. From these provisions what emerges is that the worker, who has worked for 240 days or more during one calendar year, is entitled to leave with wages during the subsequent calendar year; and that if his employment is terminated by the employer before the worker has taken the entire leave or if having applied for and having not been granted the leave, the worker leaves his employment, he is entitled to payment of wages in lieu of the leave. 5. In the present case the workers appear to have stepped away from their work during the last week of December 1956 and to have finally left service on 6th January 1957. According to them, they sent individual notices on 18th December 1956 demanding leave with wages. Those notices are not before Court. But on 6th January 1957 they gave a notice evidenced by Ext. B. 2 to the management. In that notice reference was made to the prior individual notices given by them. The reference is to the effect that the workers were leaving the employment, because no consideration was being shown by the management in their dispute regarding increase of wages. No reference appears in Ext. B2 to indicate that there was any demand for leave with wages in the previous individual notices. The law does not also help the workers to avail of leave with wages before the close of 1956, because the relevant provision of the Factories Act lays down that the workers are entitled to leave with wages only in the subsequent calendar year. Ext. The law does not also help the workers to avail of leave with wages before the close of 1956, because the relevant provision of the Factories Act lays down that the workers are entitled to leave with wages only in the subsequent calendar year. Ext. B2 then recites that the workers should be given wages in lieu of leave immediately and that they were leaving the factory the same day. This was on 6th January 1957 and the workers did not attend the factory thereafter. The question for consideration is whether in those circumstances the workers are entitled to wages in lieu of leave. 6. If the workers continue to work in the factory in the subsequent calendar year, they are entitled to leave with wages if they had worked for the requisite number of days in the previous calendar year. If on the other hand, their employment is terminated by the employer before they have taken the leave to which they are entitled, then the workers are entitled to wages in lieu of leave. Similarly if they apply for leave after they became entitled thereto, and if the leave is not granted by the management and if after such failure the workers quit the employment even then the workers are entitled to wages in lieu of leave. For one thing, a worker can take leave only in the subsequent calendar year and not earlier. Secondly, if the employer terminates the worker's employment before the worker takes the leave in the subsequent calendar year, the employer must pay wages to the worker in lieu of his leave. Similarly if the worker applies to avail of the leave in the next calendar year and if the management fails to grant such leave and the worker quits his employment, in spite of his so quitting, he is entitled to wages in lieu of leave. This according to me, is the effect of sub-sections (i) and (ii) of section 79 of the Factories Act. 7. In this case the workers produced Ext. P. 4 being the office copy of a letter by the Assistant Labour Officer addressed to the District Labour Officer. This according to me, is the effect of sub-sections (i) and (ii) of section 79 of the Factories Act. 7. In this case the workers produced Ext. P. 4 being the office copy of a letter by the Assistant Labour Officer addressed to the District Labour Officer. This letter speaks of the individual notices alleged to have been sent by the workers on 18th December 1956 expressing their desire to quit the employment on 1st January 1957 and demanding either leave with weages or wages in lieu thereof, to which they were entitled for the year 1956, on 1st January 1957. To say the least, the recitals in Ext. P.4 cannot be looked into for that document is not properly proved. The only witness examined on the side of the workers is the Assistant Labour Officer, who produced Exts. P. 1 to P. 7. When the learned advocate of the management sought to cross examine this witness, the prayer was disallowed by the Authority on the ground that the witness was cited only to produce the documents. The Officer who wrote Ext. P. 4 has not been examined ; and in the face of the reference in Ext. B2 to the recitals in the notices of 18th December 1956, it is impossible to believe the statement in Ext. P. 4 regarding the contents of those notices. Evidence to show that the workers applied for leave being granted to them in 1957 for their X work in 1956 before they left the employment is throughly lacking and therefore, I am constrained to hold that the workers are not entitled to wages in lieu of the annual leave. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the order under revision is set aside. But in the circumstances, I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs throughout.