JUDGMENT : The challenge laid by Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan & Sons to the writ Court’s order passed in W.P.(L) No.1589 of 2017 is primarily based on two grounds viz. (i) limitation and (ii) quantum of compensation. 2. Before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) at Ranchi, an application was filed on behalf of 42 workers on the allegation that they were not paid minimum wages by the employer. This application dated 26th May 2008 was registered as MW No. 14 of 2008. In that proceeding, Anjani Kumar Pandey as the President and Parmeshwar Oraon as the General Secretary of Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan Gul Factory Union, claiming themselves the office bearers of the aforesaid Union appeared on behalf of the workers. The claim raised on behalf of 42 workers has been catalogued by the Sub-Divisional Officer in a tabular chart in the order dated 27th November 2013. In this chart, the difference in the amount paid to the workers and the minimum wages payable to them have been shown separately. 3. Before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the employment of 42 workers under M/s Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan & Sons was not denied and no proof of payment of minimum wages to them was also produced by the employer. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) at Ranchi by an order dated 27th November 2013 directed payment of the balance amount with three times compensation thereon under section 20(3)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The appellate authority before whom a plea was raised on maintainability of the application filed on behalf of 42 workers did not find any substance in such objection. The appellate authority also declined to accept the plea put forth on the ground of limitation in filing the application alleging non-payment of minimum wages to the workers. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sitaram Ramcharan Etc. Vs. M. N. Nagarshana and others” AIR 1960 SC 260 , the statutory authorities under the Minimum Wages Act are required to examine the issue of limitation but an exercise in this regard was not undertaken by the original authority. The appellate authority also summarily rejected such a ground raised on behalf of the appellant. Vs. M. N. Nagarshana and others” AIR 1960 SC 260 , the statutory authorities under the Minimum Wages Act are required to examine the issue of limitation but an exercise in this regard was not undertaken by the original authority. The appellate authority also summarily rejected such a ground raised on behalf of the appellant. The submission raised on behalf of the appellant is that even in cases of beneficial legislation the statutory authority/Court is required to see whether there is any justification for the delay caused in making a complaint to the competent authority. 5. However, in view of the admitted facts that the employment of 42 workers under the appellant was not disputed and no proof regarding payment of minimum wages was produced before the competent authority, we are not inclined to accept the ground of limitation as urged on behalf of the appellant. Having there being a finding of fact recorded against the appellant that it failed to make payment as per the Minimum Wages notification of the State of Jharkhand, the workers have continuing cause of action and while so the ground of limitation raised on behalf of the appellant must fail. 6. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned SC-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand has tendered a copy of the letter dated 05th October 2023 according to which M/s Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan & Sons Workers Union is closed since 20th June 2009. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned State counsel has also drawn our attention to the information supplied through the letter dated 05th October 2023 that the registration certificates of Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan & Sons Workers Union, Gair Sarkari Vidyalay Shikshak Shikshakettar Karamchari Sangh and Krantikari Mahalaxmi Fiber Workers Union were cancelled by the Government of Bihar due to non-submission of application for re-registration. In this context, our attention has also been drawn to the order dated 19th September 2023 in which this Court recorded the order passed in LPA No.499 of 2019. 7. The order dated 19th September 2023 reads as under : “Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who claims that he is representing the cause of the workmen being President of Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan Gul Factory Union states that he is office bearer of five more Trade Unions. 2. 7. The order dated 19th September 2023 reads as under : “Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who claims that he is representing the cause of the workmen being President of Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan Gul Factory Union states that he is office bearer of five more Trade Unions. 2. He is the respondent no.5 in the present proceeding and has provided name of five Trade Unions being (i) Jharkhand General Kamgar Union, Registration No. 144/07, (ii) Engineering Mazdoor Sabha 1304/69, (iii) Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan & Sons Workers Union, (iv) Krantikari Mahalakshmi Fibers Industries Shramik Sangh and (v) Gair Sarkari Vidyalay Shikshak Shikshaketar Karmchari Mahasangh with which he is associated as office bearer. However he is unable to recollect name of the sixth one which he states that he would provide after the recess. 3. The respondent no. 5 has apprised the Court that Khujan Xalxo, Binu Minz and Parmeshwar Oraon are present in the Court who state that every day they are visiting the factory at Sonsh which was closed about 15 years back. However on a Court’s query, Khujan Xalxo and Binu Minz are unable to provide any justification for their daily visit in the last 15 years to the factory premises except that they have not been paid their salary. 4. After recess, the respondent no.5 has provided name of the sixth Trade Union being Bihar Flour Mills Mazdoor Sabha of which he is the General Secretary. 5. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned SC-III refers to an order dated 10th January 2023 passed in L.P.A No. 499 of 2019 to submit that the respondent no.5 is required to file an affidavit in terms thereof. In paragraph no.22 of the order passed in L.P.A No. 499 of 2019 this Court has observed and directed as under: “22. However, there is one aspect of the matter which needs to be recorded in this proceeding. A copy of the Award dated 7th August 2020 passed in Reference Case No. 3 of 2014 has been filed in W.P.(L) No. 3304 of 2021, a glance at which would disclose that the authority of Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey as the General Secretary of the Union was seriously challenged by Chandra Prakash Singh and Shankar Mahto who claimed that Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey used forged documents and projected himself as the legal representative of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha. Anjani Kumar Pandey as the General Secretary of the Union was seriously challenged by Chandra Prakash Singh and Shankar Mahto who claimed that Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey used forged documents and projected himself as the legal representative of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha. We further find a reference in this regard that criminal cases have been lodged against Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey. We, however, do not find any reference in the order of the writ Court or even before this Court that Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who is appearing in-person has disclosed these facts to this Court. Therefore, this Court takes serious note of the aforesaid conduct of Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey who did not inform this Court about such a dispute raised and seriously contested before the Reference Court. Therefore, we direct him to make a special reference about this dispute wherever he intends to represent himself as the authorized representative of the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha.” 6. Post this matter on 6th October 2023.” 8. There was a delay of 8 years in making the complaint regarding non-payment of minimum wages to the workers and the conduct and activity of the President of the Union are suspicious. But this also now stands established that the establishment has been closed since 20th June 2009. However, by the order dated 27th November 2013, a liability of Rs.28,09,082/- has been saddled upon the establishment for non-payment of minimum wages stretching over a period of about 8 years. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant now cannot dispute the liability, we are of the opinion that award of compensation three times the difference of amount payable to the workers cannot be countenanced in law. While exercising powers under clause (i) to sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, the competent authority was required to examine the financial condition of the establishment and also the business practices. It was also required to have a consideration in mind that sudden saddling of liability for 8 years would be onerous and against the norms of fair play. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, the order passed by the original authority dated 27th November 2013 is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs.28,09,082/- shall be paid besides compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to each worker. 10. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, the order passed by the original authority dated 27th November 2013 is modified to the extent that the amount of Rs.28,09,082/- shall be paid besides compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to each worker. 10. The order dated 21st December 2021 passed by the writ Court is modified to the above extent. 11. Consequently, the order dated 27th November 2013 in MW Case No. 14 of 2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, order dated 18th November 2016 in MW Appeal No. 16R 15 of 2014-15 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi and order dated 10th September 2022 passed in Certificate Case No. MW-11 of 2021 passed by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Certificate Officer, Sadar, Ranchi are set-aside. 12. Let the entire amount so calculated be deposited with the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within a period of six weeks. Any amount deposited by M/s Haji Shah Hussain Buksh Khan & Sons shall now also be transferred to JHALSA. Thereafter, notices shall be issued to each worker who shall be paid only upon due identification. 13. LPA No.87 of 2022 is allowed in the above terms. 14. I.A. No. 10471 of 2022 filed for staying the order dated 10th September 2022 passed in Certificate Case No. MW-11 of 2021 and I.A. No. 2725 of 2023 filed for brining on record the additional documents pertaining to M.W. Case No. 14 of 2008 stand closed.