JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. None appears for opposite party No. 2. 2. Hundred Petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order dated 18.4.1999 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in M.J.C. No. 1 of 1997 annexed as Annexure-1 to this petition. 3. The matrix of the case bereft of unnecessary details is that the Petitioners were employed under O.P. No. 2, Agricultural Officer, Mixed Farm, Similiguda, in the district of Koraput. They filed an application claiming arrear wages u/s 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the period from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1993. The petition u/s 20 of the Act was filed on 26.2.1997 along with a petition for condonation of delay. The learned S.D.J.M. initially proceeded to record evidence keeping the question of condonation of delay in abeyance. The employer O.P. No. 2 challenged the said order before this Court in O.J.C. No. 3428 of 1998. During pendency of the writ petition also witnesses were examined by the learned S.D.J.M. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition directed that the petition for condonation of delay should be heard at the initial stage as a preliminary issue and remanded the matter back to the learned S.D.J.M. The learned S.D.J.M. considering the said application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the delay cannot be condoned and accordingly, the application filed u/s 20 of the Act was rejected on the ground that it is barred by time. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners produced before me the application filed before the learned S.D.J.M. for condonation of delay and the objection filed by O.P. No. 2 to the said application on 13.10.1998. In Paragraph-5 of the said objection it has been stated on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that the wages from 1.7.1990 to 31.10.1990 of the Petitioners was settled by the O.P. No. 2 on 5.2.1996. On such settlement, the strike which was called off by the Krushi Mazdoor Sangha. 5. In Paragraph-5 of the said objection it has been stated on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that the wages from 1.7.1990 to 31.10.1990 of the Petitioners was settled by the O.P. No. 2 on 5.2.1996. On such settlement, the strike which was called off by the Krushi Mazdoor Sangha. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the learned S.D.J.M. while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, has not taken this fact into consideration that the due of the Petitioners till 31.10.1990 was settled only on 05.02.1996 but has come to the conclusion that there has been inordinate delay in filing the petition. It has been averred in the application for condonation of delay that the Petitioners repeatedly approached for payment of balance arrear wages for the period as claimed in their application u/s 20 of the Act. As their grievance was not redressed, they were compelled to approach the Court. Considering the fact that the wages till 31.10.1990 was paid in the year 1996 and the application u/s 20 of the Act was filed in the year 1997. The second proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act provides that an application may be admitted u/s 20 of the Act after the period of 6 (six) months if the Applicant satisfies the authority that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The said proviso prescribes a plenary power to condone the delay. It is not controlled by the limitation prescribed by Limitation Act for a suit. The words "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction. 6. In view of the nature of power given to the authority/Court for condoning the delay in filing an application u/s 20 of the Act claiming unpaid wages, this Court considers that delay in the lodging the claim beyond the period prescribed in the said Section, if shown, to have occurred on account of sufficient cause should be condoned, delay in filing of such application is not required to be explain even as u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The Petitioners having shown that their wages till 31.10.1990 was only settled by the O.P. No. 2 as later on 05.02.1996, the learned Court below considering this aspect of the case should have condoned the delay as such settlement was itself a sufficient case on the part of the Petitioners in filing the application u/s 20 of the Act beyond the prescribed period. When it has been averred that after settlement of the dues till 31.10.1990, the Petitioners went on pursuing the matter with the authorities of the O.P. No. 2 for payment of the balance arrear wages. 7. In view of such position, this Court condones the delay in filing the application u/s 20 of the Act by quashing the impugned order under Annexure-1. The learned S.D.J.M., Koraput is directed to proceed with M.J.C. No. 1 of 1997 and dispose of the same on merit. Since the matter is of the year 1997, parties are directed to cooperate with the trial of the case and the learned S.D.J.M. is directed to complete the proceeding by the end of December 2008. As the opposite party No. 2 in spite of valid service of notice has not appeared before this Court, the learned S.D.J.M. on receiving the certified copy of this order, shall issue notice to the opposite party No. 2 fixing the date of hearing and proceed with the matter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed but without any cost. Final Result : Allowed