JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order, dated 24-01-2013, passed by the first respondent – the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru, in M.W.M.P.Case No.1 of 2012, and to forbear the first respondent from proceeding in any manner with the application filed by the respondents 2 to 31 claiming minimum wages in the petition filed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondents 2 to 31 filed an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ( for short ‘the Act, 1948’) claiming difference of minimum wages under Sub Section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948. As per the first proviso to sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948 every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other amount) become payable. Whereas, the second proviso to sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948 envisages 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 the said period. The respondents 2 to 31 alleged that they were not paid minimum wages. Their case is that they approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru on 22-02-2011 seeking for justice. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru conducted joint meetings on 07-03-2011, 26-03-2011 and 04-05-2011. They alleged that due to adamant attitude of the opposite party (the petitioner herein), the matter could not be settled amicably. Then it appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru advised the respondents 2 to 31 to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal. Accordingly, the respondents 2 to 31 approached the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Authority’) on 01-06-2011 and filed a claim petition vide MW.MP.Case No.1 of 2012. They also filed an application to condone the delay of two years two months. In the petition, the respondents 2 to 31 alleged that the petitioner herein prolonged the issue contending that it will implement the minimum wages, and since there is no response from it, they filed the claim under the Act, 1948. They also filed an application to condone the delay of two years two months. In the petition, the respondents 2 to 31 alleged that the petitioner herein prolonged the issue contending that it will implement the minimum wages, and since there is no response from it, they filed the claim under the Act, 1948. The respondents 2 to 31 further contended that there is no willful delay or negligence on their part in filing the claim application and prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner herein filed a counter in the said claim petition denying the claim of the respondents 2 to 31. The specific case of the petitioner (herein) is that the respondents 2 to 31 never approached it nor requested as stated by them. The first respondent allowed the condone delay petition, by orders dated 24-01-2013. The first respondent, in its order, observed that the respondents 2 to 31 contended that whenever they approached the management (the petitioner herein) for their legitimate wages, the management prolonged the issue, and that there was no willful laches or negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the claim petition. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein. 4. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that when the petitioner has disputed the contention of the respondents 2 to 31 that they approached it, the respondents 2 to 31 ought to have adduced some evidence in support of their case. It is also his submission that though the Authority has discretionary power, the same has to be exercised considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his further submission that no cogent reasons have been assigned by the respondents 2 to 31 to condone the delay. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363). 5. Mrs. P. Bala Rani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 31, would submit that the procedure to be followed by the first respondent is a summery procedure, and that the Authority has to avoid hyper technical approach. 5. Mrs. P. Bala Rani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 31, would submit that the procedure to be followed by the first respondent is a summery procedure, and that the Authority has to avoid hyper technical approach. It is also her case that the respondents 2 to 31 had categorically stated in their application that joint meetings were held and thus they have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. She relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Improvement Trust Ludhiana v.Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 786);Collector, Land Acquisition; Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353); Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 222(1);and Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sao (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1201), in support of her contention that the application for condonation of delay should receive liberal construction so as to advance the substantial justice. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Authority under Minimum Wages Act is justified in condoning the delay? 7. It is not in dispute that the second proviso to sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Act, 1948 enables the Authority to admit an application filed after the period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause in not making the application within such period. 8. In Lanka Venkateswarlu’s case ( 1 Supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application to condone the delay 883 days was filed in filing a petition seeking to set aside the dismissal order; and that application to bring the L.Rs of deceased, was filed with a delay of 3703 days. In that case, the Government Pleader filed an appeal on 18-02-1983 and took three long years to get the appeal numbered. The sole respondent died in 1990. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Government Pleader on 24-02-1997. The Court passed a conditional order on 06-02-1998 and then the appeal was dismissed for not bringing the L.Rs. on record. After two more years, the Officials concerned of the Government and the Government Pleader in office at the relevant point of time filed some applications, which were not in proper. The Court passed a conditional order on 06-02-1998 and then the appeal was dismissed for not bringing the L.Rs. on record. After two more years, the Officials concerned of the Government and the Government Pleader in office at the relevant point of time filed some applications, which were not in proper. Having regard to the specific facts of that case and in view of the negligence of the Government Pleader, which was almost culpable negligence in performing his duties, the Apex Court observed that the High Court was not justified in condoning the delay. It is clear that the facts of that case are entirely different and the present case cannot be disposed of in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. There was not only inordinate delay, but there was culpable negligence in that case. The carelessness of Government Pleader was apparent in that case. In that case also, it is specifically observed that the principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 9. In Improvement Trust Ludhiana’s case (2 Supra), the delay was two months and two days. In the said circumstances, it was observed by the Apex Court that the delay in filing the first appeal for setting aside the sale has not been so huge warranting its dismissal on such hyper technical ground. It is further observed that while considering the application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion whether sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not and each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. It is further observed that it is the duty of the Court to see to that justice should be done. Unless the behaviour of a party is callous and negligent in prosecuting the case, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. 10. In Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat’s case (4 Supra) also,there was a delay of two years two months and nine days. In the said case, the Apex Court observed as follows: “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. 10. In Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat’s case (4 Supra) also,there was a delay of two years two months and nine days. In the said case, the Apex Court observed as follows: “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.” 11. In Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu’s case (5 Supra), the Apex Court observed that the applications to condone the delay should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. 12. In the light of the above decisions, the facts of the case on hand have to be considered. Though the respondents 2 to 31 did not refer to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the joint meetings conducts, in their application to condone the delay, but they have stated those facts in their application wherein they claimed the minimum wages. The respondents 2 to 31 have stated in their application as follows: “It is further submitted that immediately after transferred, the applicants approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru on 22-02-2011 praying justice and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour conducted joint meetings on 07-03-2011, 26-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 but due to adamant attitude of the Opposite Party, the Applicant could not get retention And the Deputy Commissioner of Labour advised the applicant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, hence the applicant filed this appeal before this Authority.” 13. It is also alleged that they were denied minimum wages and that they were harassed by transferring them to various places in the State. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the respondents 2 to 31 never approached it for their legitimate wages. The main contention of the respondents 2 to 31 is that whenever they asked the petitioner herein for their legitimate wages as per the Government Orders, it prolonged the issue by saying that it would implement the minimum wages. Of course, the said fact has been denied by the petitioner herein in its counter. 14. The main contention of the respondents 2 to 31 is that whenever they asked the petitioner herein for their legitimate wages as per the Government Orders, it prolonged the issue by saying that it would implement the minimum wages. Of course, the said fact has been denied by the petitioner herein in its counter. 14. As seen from the above referred facts, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru conducted joint meetings on 07-03-2011, 26-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 for solving the issue. The fact that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru conducted joint meetings as referred above is not in dispute. This circumstance supports the version of the respondents 2 to 31 that they were approaching the petitioner herein for payment of minimum wages or difference of wages and it prolonged the issue by saying that it will implement the minimum wages. Thus, it appears that when the petitioner herein assured the respondents 2 to 31 that it would implement the minimum wages, they did not approach the authorities within the prescribed time and that caused delay in making the application for difference of minimum wages. 15. In the case of condonation of delay, when both parties have not adduced any evidence; and when no other material is placed before the Court, the applications have to be decided basing on the pleadings and the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record to say that the petitioner herein insisted that the evidence has to be adduced by the respondents 2 to 31 in support of their claim. When it is the discretionary power of the Authority to condone the delay basing on facts and circumstances of the case, and when the Authority seems to have exercised its power, such exercise of power and passing order in exercise of such power cannot be treated as perverse, or not based on any material. It is for the Authority to satisfy whether there is sufficient cause or not, and once the Authority has satisfied that the respondents 2 to 31 have shown sufficient cause, the Authority is justified in condoning the delay. This Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not interfere with exercise of such power. Unless it is shown that such exercise of power is perverse and totally unreasonable. This Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not interfere with exercise of such power. Unless it is shown that such exercise of power is perverse and totally unreasonable. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.