JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the 2 nd respondent, the authority under the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 (for short 'the Act,1948'). 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of pharmaceuticals. The 1 st respondent was working as a Medical and Sales Representative in the petitioner Company, who was terminated from service. The 1 st respondent filed Ext.P2 claim petition seeking to release an amount of Rs.3,58,982/-, which is the minimum wages due to him as per the provisions of the Act, 1948. Petitioner would contend that even on a perusal of Ext.P2 claim petition, it could be seen that the 1 st respondent has not specifically claimed or pleaded the period as well as the rates in which he is entitled to get the minimum wages. Ext.P4 counter statement has been filed by the petitioner wherein the question of limitation has been specifically raised and contended that the claim petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and the question of maintainability needs to be heard as a preliminary issue. Though the 1 st respondent was dismissed from service during 2015, he has filed various complaints before various authorities during the said period for which the condonation of delay is sought for. The case of the petitioner is that there are no arrears of minimum wages to be paid to the 1 st respondent. Ext.P5 rejoinder was filed by the 1 st respondent. Evidence was adduced, and Exts.A1 to A8 documents were marked on the side of the 1 st respondent. Though the salary details of the 1 st respondent were submitted by the petitioner Company, the same were not marked since the same did not contain any seal. The 2 nd respondent authority, without appreciating the facts as well as the law, in a unilateral manner allowed the claim petition by Ext.P7 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 2 nd respondent authority, without appreciating the facts as well as the law, in a unilateral manner allowed the claim petition by Ext.P7 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 petition is barred by limitation, in as much as Section 20(2) of the Act, 1948 mandates that an application/claim petition is to be filed within six months from the date on which minimum wages became payable, though on sufficient reasons to be shown the delay could be condoned. But in the present case, no valid reason has been stated for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. It is further contended that no amount is due to the 1 st respondent, and the 2 nd respondent, while issuing Ext.P7 order, has not considered any of the contentions of the petitioner in a proper manner and that he has not given any reason for condoning the delay and allowing the claim petition. It is also contended that the 1 st respondent failed to prove his claim by adducing proper evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the salary statement as Ext.P8, which was not accepted by the authority as the same was not signed and sealed by a competent person. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P9, which is the application filed by the 1 st respondent before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, contends that the petitioner is taking different stands regarding the last drawn monthly wages. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent, contending that he was employed as a Medical Sales Representative in the petitioner company and later he was discharged as per Ext.R1(a) discharge letter dated 9.9.2015, and in Ext.R1(a) it is clearly mentioned that the last month pay is only Rs.6167/- which is much below the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Kerala. All throughout his service in the petitioner Company, he was paid wages much less than what is fixed by the Government of Kerala for employees employed in the Sales Promotion of Pharmaceutical Products Sector, which is a Scheduled employment under the Act, 1948. Though several demands were made, the petitioner was not ready to pay the MINIMUM WAGES ACT ually due to him. Though several demands were made, the petitioner was not ready to pay the MINIMUM WAGES ACT ually due to him. In the said circumstances, Ext.P2 claim petition was filed along with Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay. Petitioner would submit that he was under constant medical care and attention due to various diseases contracted by him and was undergoing treatment as per the advice of the expert doctors and to prove the illness, has produced Ext.A8 series of medical records which was taken into consideration by the authority while issuing Ext.P7 order. From 2006 onwards, he was suffering from diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease and was under continuous treatment from 2006 onwards. By 2015, insulin pump therapy was started, and he required lifelong treatment. It is taking note of all these that the delay in filing the claim petition was condoned. Though various contentions were raised by the petitioner before the controlling authority, no documents have been produced to substantiate them. The salary statement produced by the petitioner was without any seal or signature, and the authority has correctly rejected the marking of the same. The petitioner also did not take any steps to produce sufficient documents to substantiate their contentions and did not examine any competent person of the petitioner organisation. It is further submitted that Ext.P2 claim petition was accompanied by Ext.R1(b) series of annexures which clearly show the amount due and claimed by the 1 st respondent and the same was suppressed by the petitioner by producing Ext.P2 as a document in the writ petition without its Annexures. On the above-said contention, the 1 st respondent would submit that the claim petition has been properly considered by the authority and issued Ext.P7 order and no interference is called for. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 6. Essentially, two contentions are raised by the petitioner assailing Ext.P7 order passed by the authority under the Act, 1948. Let me consider the first contention raised by the petitioner that the application has not been filed within time and no valid reasons have been stated in Ext.P3 petition filed seeking to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. 6. Essentially, two contentions are raised by the petitioner assailing Ext.P7 order passed by the authority under the Act, 1948. Let me consider the first contention raised by the petitioner that the application has not been filed within time and no valid reasons have been stated in Ext.P3 petition filed seeking to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. Section 20 (1) and (2) of the Act,1948 reads as follows: “20.Claims.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint [any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, [or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Deputy Labour Commissioner] or any] other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment less than the minimum rates of wages [or in respect of the payment of the remuneration for days of rest or for work done or such days under C1.(b) or C1.(c) of sub-section(1) of Sec.13 or of wages at the overtime rate under Sec.141, to employees employed or paid in that area.] (2) [Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section(1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any 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 six months from the date on which the minimum wages [or other amount] became payable: Provided further 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 such period.” (underline supplied) Going by the 1 st proviso to Section 20(2) every application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable, and the second proviso provides 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 such period. Ext.P3 is the application seeking to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. The 1 st respondent submits that he was undergoing treatment, and it is only due to the serious health condition that he could not raise a claim within time. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would submit that sufficient medical records were produced before the authority to substantiate his contentions in Ext.P3 petition to condone the delay, and the medical records produced before the authority were marked as Annexure-A8. The case records before the authority were called for by this Court and examined, and the same would reveal that Ext.P8 series of medical records was produced by the 1 st respondent to prove his contention that the delay occurred only because of his serious health condition. The authority, only after going through the records produced as Annexure-A8, entered a finding to the effect that there is sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 petition. 7. The petitioner would contend that the Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 , considering a case under the Army Act 1950 held that the authority exercising quasi- judicial function must record reasons for its decision and the reasons should be clear and explicit though may not be elaborate and in the present case no valid reasons have been stated to condone the delay. But a perusal of Ext.P7 order would reveal that valid and cogent reasons have been given by the authority to come to the conclusion in Ext.P7 and therefore the decision cited supra will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Chacha Nehru Vidyapith, Ranchi v. Authority under MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, and others (2001 (1) LLN 1193) the High Court of Jharkhand was considering a challenge against the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner in condoning the delay in raising a claim petition and the Court held in paragraphs 6 and 6A reads as follows: “6.From perusal of the original order, dated 30 January 1996, passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, it appears that the authority before condoning the delay recorded its satisfaction that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing application within time. The appellate authority also considered the question and came to a finding that the satisfaction recorded by original authority and condoning the delay needs no interference. 6A. It is true that generally Court should not come in aid of a party where there has been unwarrantable delay in seeking statutory remedy and the remedy must be sought with reasonable promptitute having regard to circumstances. But at the same time the plea of limitation is one which the Court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority or any institution, in all morality and justice take up such plea to defeat just claim of a citizen. It is always permissible to adopt a beneficial construction of a rule of limitation, particularly in giving the relief under a beneficial legislation. This Court therefore, in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot probe into the question as to whether there existed sufficient cause which give jurisdiction to the authority to condone the delay. This question is answered against the petitioner.” (underline supplied) The Apex Court in Sarpanch, Lonand Gramapanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi and Another 1968 KHC 413 was considering the power of discretion of Authority in condoning the delay as provided under the 2 nd proviso to Section 20(2) and held that words “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bonafides is imputable to the applicant and the High Court shall refuse to interfere unless there is grave miscarriage of justice. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgment reads as follows: “3. 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, see Keighley's case,(1609) 10 Co.Rep 139 a: 77ER 1136. 4. The wording of the second proviso is similar to the provisions of S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In Krishna v. Chathappan, (13) ILR 1890 Mad. The discretion is to know through law what is just, see Keighley's case,(1609) 10 Co.Rep 139 a: 77ER 1136. 4. The wording of the second proviso is similar to the provisions of S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In Krishna v. Chathappan, (13) ILR 1890 Mad. 269 the Madras High Court indicated in the following passage how the discretion under S.5 should be exercised: We think that S.5 gives the Courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood: the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bana fides is imputable to the appellants. This decision received the approval of this Court in Dinabandhu Sahu v.Jadumoni Mangaraj, 1955(1)SCR 140 at p.146:( AIR 1954 SC 411 at p.414) and Ramlal Motilal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962(2) SCR 762 at p.767:( AIR 1962 SC 361 at p. 363). The words “sufficient cause” in the second proviso to S.20(2) should receive similar liberal construction.” (underline supplied) 8. Admittedly, sufficient reason has been given in Ext.P3 in support of the contention that it is only due to his serious health issues that the 1 st respondent could not file the claim petition within time. The 1 st respondent has also produced a series of medical records as Annexure-A8, and while condoning the delay as per Ext.P7 order, the authority has taken into consideration Ext.A8 series of medical records which revealed the serious health condition of the 1 st respondent and therefore condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition. In a claim made under a beneficial legislation as held by the decision cited supra, the word “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the authority has properly applied its mind after considering the documents submitted in support of the petition to condone the delay and the same was condoned for valid reasons. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the authority did not consider the contentions properly before condoning the delay is only to be rejected. 9. Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the claim raised in Ext.P2. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the authority did not consider the contentions properly before condoning the delay is only to be rejected. 9. Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the claim raised in Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though an amount of Rs.3,58,982/- is claimed in Ext.P2 claim petition the 1 st respondent has not specifically claimed or pleaded the period as well as the rate at which he is entitled to get the minimum wages and that only a casual statement is made in the claim petition that he is entitled for the amount claimed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that along with Ext.P2 claim petition Ext.R1(b) series of annexures were attached, which are mandatorily required to be attached along with the claim petition. I have verified the records of the authority, which revealed that along with Ext.P2 claim petition Ext.R1(b) statements were also seen attached. Petitioner has not produced the copies of the said annexures along with Ext.P2 and is raising a contention that the details of the amount claimed have not been enumerated by the 1 st respondent in the claim petition. First of all filing of the writ petition without a complete set of Ext.P2 claim petition and raising a ground that no details have been given by the 1 st respondent in support of his claim cannot be lightly looked into by this Court and is of the opinion that the petitioner by suppressing material facts before this Court is raising untenable contentions in the writ petition. Further, a perusal of Ext.P2 claim petition and Ext.R1(a) attached to the same would clearly reveal that the 1 st respondent has raised his claim with all supporting documents. It is also to be noted that as per the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Government of Kerala as per GO (MS) 703/2009/LBR dated 27.05.2009 basic wage to be paid for category of employees under “Sale promotion” is fixed as Rs.7100-150-7850/-. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would reveal that these details furnished by the 1 st respondent have been duly considered by the authority. Though the petitioner contends that Ext.P8 monthly salary statement was produced before the authority to show the details of the wages paid to the 1 st respondent, the same was not accepted. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would reveal that these details furnished by the 1 st respondent have been duly considered by the authority. Though the petitioner contends that Ext.P8 monthly salary statement was produced before the authority to show the details of the wages paid to the 1 st respondent, the same was not accepted. Valid reason has been given by the authority for not accepting the said document, as the said document produced did not bear any company seal or signature, and no person was examined to prove the authenticity of the document. I am of the view that the authority has rightly rejected the document produced by the petitioner, which did not contain the seal of the company or signature of the authorized person and did not examine any person to prove the authenticity of the statement. Further Ext.P8 salary statement produced by the petitioner cannot be accepted also for the reason that the same is not a document regarding payment of wages to the employees to be maintained as per the provisions of the Act, 1948 and the Rules thereunder. Section 18(1) of the Act, 1948 deals with maintenance of registers and records which mandates that every employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of employees employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid to them, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be prescribed. Further Rule 29(1) of the KERALA MINIMUM WAGES RULES , 1958, mandates that a register of wages in Form XI shall be maintained by every employer and kept at the workspot. A perusal of Form XI appended to the Rules,1948 would reveal that Ext.P8 document is not a document maintained as per the provisions of the Act, 1948 and the Rules thereunder. Further, the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to produce the statutory documents to substantiate their contentions before the authority and could have been examined competent person to substantiate their contentions. The petitioner, having not done so, cannot contend that the details of wages given by the 1 st respondent in the claim statement are without any basis and that the authority, while issuing Ext.P7 has not adjudicated the claim in a proper perspective. 10. The petitioner, having not done so, cannot contend that the details of wages given by the 1 st respondent in the claim statement are without any basis and that the authority, while issuing Ext.P7 has not adjudicated the claim in a proper perspective. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order of the 2 nd respondent and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial court records shall be transmitted to the 2 nd respondent forthwith.