Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant revision impugns the judgment dated December 11, 1993 of the learned District Judge Ajmer whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated October 30, 1990 of the Payment of Wages Authority Ajmer, was dismissed and compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,95,537 and 22 paise was directed to be paid for the unlawful deduction of the sages for which the employees of L.I.C. were entitled. (2). I shall first take up the objection in respect of limitation raised by the learned counsel. Non-petitioner moved an application against the petitioner before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act Ajmer (for short the Authority) for the payment of wages which the employees of L.I.C. were entitled in respect of over time work done on holidays of December 23, 24 & 25 of 1984 in connection with the work of Election. Admittedly, the wages were due on December 23, 24 and 25, 1984. The application was filed by the non-petitioner before the Authority on April 1, 1986. (3). It is necessary now to refer the provisions contained in Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short the Act) which runs as under- ``Claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims- (1) xx xxx (2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deductions has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub- section (3) : Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be : Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (twelve months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. (4). (4). A perusal of the first proviso of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act demonstrates that application shall be presented within twelve months from the date on which the deductions from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made. (5). In Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Jodhpur vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur (1), Honble Jagat Narayan J. as he then was, had occasion to consider the provisions contained in Section 15(2) of the Act. It was indicated that the mere fact that there is protracted correspondence is not sufficient in every case for condoning the delay. It is only when the correspondence shows that there was reason to hope that the grievance would be redressed as a result of the correspondence that sufficient cause for condoning the delay is made out. (6). In the case on hand both the courts below computed the limitation from the date of denial i.e. from April 2, 1985 and not from the date of when the wages were due. I do not agree with the view of the courts below, in view of the first proviso to section 15(2) of the Act. Therefore, looking to the first proviso to section 15(2) of the Act, I am of the view that the application filed by the non-petitioner was exfacie time barred and it ought not to be allowed. Both the courts below, in my opinion have committed error of jurisdiction in allowing the application. (7). Consequently, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. However, I remand the case in view of the case of Divisional Personnel Officer Northern Railway, Jodhpur vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur (supra), to consider the nature of the correspondence for condoning the delay under proviso second of section 15(2) of the Act. The non- petitioner if chooses can file the application under section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act read with second proviso to section 15(2) of the Act before the authority. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Ajmer on December 19, 1997. Costs easy.