H R NAGARAJU MURTHY vs ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 28205 OF 2023 (L-MW)

BETWEEN:

H R NAGARAJU MURTHY
S/O H D RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
ND TH
2 MAIN 4 CROSS
SIDDAYYA NAGAR, WARD NO 31
B M ROAD, HASSAN-573201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.G. MAHESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE)








AND:

1. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE
MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948
HASSAN 573201, SAMSKRUTHA MARGA
ARALIKATTA ROAD, PWD COLONY, RANGOLI HALLA
HASSAN KARNATKA-573201.

2. M/S VENKAT MOTORS AUTHORIZED DEALERS
SALES AND SERVICE BRANCH
KIADB CIRCLE, HOSAKOPPAL
H N PURA ROAD, HASSAN 573201
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1:
SMT. AMRUTHA S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMPATH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)



Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 15.7.23 PASSED BY R1 BEARING
NO. U KA AA HAA/ KA VE KA/ CR-15/2018-19 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A, AND DIRECT THE R2 TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE
OF MINIMUM WAGES OF PAY FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 2008 TO
MARCH 2017 ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12
PERCENT ANNUM AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner,
challenging the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by
respondent No.1-Authority, vide Annexure-A, whereby the
authority has granted minimum wages payable to the
petitioner only for the period from April 2017 to
September 2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had
worked as a Cashier-cum-Accountant in the respondent
No.2-Company for the period from 01.06.2008 to
10.09.2017. Accordingly, he filed a claim petition under
Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023


(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1948’ for short),
seeking payment of minimum wages for the period from
01.06.2008 to 10.09.2017. By the impugned order, the
respondent No.1-authority has granted minimum wages to
the petitioner only for the period from April 2017 to
September 2017. However, insofar as the claim of the
petitioner for the period from June 2008 to March 2017 is
concerned, the authority has not granted any amount.
Therefore, challenging the said order, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that admittedly the petitioner had worked in the
respondent No.2-Company from 01.06.2008 to
10.09.2017. However, by the impugned order, respondent
No.1-authority has granted minimum wages only for the
period from April 2017 to September 2017 and has not
assigned any reasons for denying the claim of the
petitioner for the earlier period. It is further submitted that
the authority has failed to exercise its powers under
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023


Section 20 of the Act, 1948, and, therefore, the impugned
order, insofar as it denies the claim for the earlier period,
is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for respondent No.1 would submit that, though the
petitioner has filed a claim petition seeking payment of
minimum wages for the period from 01.06.2008 to
10.09.2017, no application has been filed seeking
condonation of delay in respect of the claim relating to the
earlier period. Under Section 20(2) of the Act, 1948, the
authority can entertain an application only if it is
presented within six months from the date on which the
minimum wages become payable. However, the authority
is also empowered to entertain an application filed beyond
the said period, if the applicant satisfies the authority that
there was sufficient cause for not making the application
within the prescribed period. In the present case, no such
application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by
the petitioner. Accordingly, the authority has considered
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023


the claim only for the period permissible under the said
provision and has rightly passed the impugned order.
Hence, there is no error in the order passed by respondent
No.1-authority.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
Company would also support the impugned order passed
by respondent No.1-authority.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused writ petition papers.

7. The case of the petitioner is that he had worked as a
Cashier-cum-Accountant in the respondent No.2-Company
for the period from 01.06.2008 to 10.09.2017. He has
filed a claim petition before respondent No.1-authority
under the provisions of the Act, 1948, seeking payment of
minimum wages for the period from 01.06.2008 to
10.09.2017.

8. Section 20(2) of the Act, 1948, provides that an
application claiming payment of minimum wages shall be
presented within six months from the date on which the
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023


minimum wages became payable. However, the proviso to
the said provision further provides that an application may
be admitted even after the expiry of the said period of six
months, if the applicant satisfies the authority that there
was sufficient cause for not making the application within
the prescribed period.

9. Thus, the authority is empowered to entertain a
claim petition filed beyond the period of six months,
provided the applicant satisfies the authority that there
was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application.
In such circumstances, the authority may condone the
delay and proceed to consider the claim on merits.

10. In the case on hand, it is very clear from the
impugned order that the petitioner has not filed any
application seeking condonation of delay in respect of the
claim relating to the earlier period. The respondent-State,
in its statement of objections filed herein, has taken a
categorical stand that no application seeking condonation
of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Further, even in
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023


the pleadings of the present writ petition, nowhere has the
petitioner contended that he had filed any application
seeking condonation of delay before respondent No.1-
authority.

11. Therefore, in the absence of an application seeking
condonation of delay and sufficient cause being shown for
the delay, respondent No.1-authority was justified in
considering the claim only to the extent permissible and in
accordance with the period of limitation prescribed under
Section 20(2) of the Act, 1948.

12. From the date of filing of the claim petition, namely,
12.06.2018, respondent No.1-authority has considered the
claim for the period of six months preceding the filing of
the application and has passed the order granting
minimum wages for the period from April 2017 to
September 2017. In the absence of any application
seeking condonation of delay, the authority was justified in
not entertaining the claim relating to the earlier period.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60781
WP No. 28205 of 2023


CNR: KAHC010635422023



13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
there is no error or illegality in the order passed by
respondent No.1-authority warranting interference by this
Court.
dismissed
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is . However,
insofar as the claim of the petitioner relating to the earlier
period is concerned, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
work out his remedies, if any, in accordance with law, if
law permits.

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE



HA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31