Ten-year delay in filing a wage claim under the Shops and Establishments Act was impermissibly condoned.

The private respondent was appointed as Deputy General Manager on probation by ITD Cementation India Limited, the petitioner’s erstwhile company, by an appointment letter dated 14 January 2009. His services were confirmed on 3 August 2009, and he was posted at the Kolkata Airport Construction Project, although the appointment and related employment documents were issued from the company’s Mumbai office.

The respondent resigned by email dated 24 February 2012. The resignation was accepted by the company’s Mumbai office on 29 February 2012, and a service certificate was subsequently issued on 21 May 2012.

Upon cessation of employment, the company paid him approximately Rs. 11,12,816.03 towards full and final settlement, leave encashment, legal dues and superannuation benefits.

After more than ten years, the respondent filed Form N under the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963, claiming Rs. 4,30,656 towards alleged recovery of wages, together with interest. The application was filed on 11 November 2022 in respect of a claim allegedly ending on 31 March 2012.

The petitioner raised preliminary objections concerning limitation, absence of any deduction from wages, applicability and territorial jurisdiction under the 1963 Act, competence of the Referee, and the contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on Mumbai courts.

By order dated 29 May 2026, the Referee condoned the delay, overruled the preliminary objections and admitted the claim for adjudication on merits.

Whether the Referee was justified in condoning a delay of approximately ten years and seven months in filing the Form N claim under the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963?

Whether the Referee could entertain the claim where the petitioner disputed the existence of any wage deduction and raised substantial questions concerning the applicability, territorial jurisdiction and appropriate forum under the 1963 Act?

Whether the contractual stipulation making disputes subject to Mumbai jurisdiction affected the maintainability of the proceedings before the West Bengal Referee?

The Court applied the provisions and procedural mechanism under the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963, including the Form N claim for recovery of wages and the petitioner’s reliance on Section 14(3), which was contended to apply only where an unlawful deduction from wages had occurred.

It relied on M/s. Gupta Electric Company & Anr. v. The Learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Calcutta & Ors., 1988 SCC OnLine Cal 19, where it was held that disputed questions concerning wrongful termination and other intricate issues should not be decided by a limited wage authority and may appropriately be left to the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court also applied the principle that an unexplained or inadequately justified delay cannot be condoned so as to keep a stale claim indefinitely alive.

The Court noted that the respondent’s employment had ended in February–March 2012 and that the Form N application was filed only in November 2022, resulting in a delay of approximately ten years and seven months.

The Referee had condoned the delay primarily on the basis of the respondent’s age, ill-health, alleged continuing correspondence with the company and the need to provide an opportunity of hearing.

The High Court found that these reasons did not constitute a legally sufficient basis for permitting such a substantially delayed claim.

The Court further considered that the claim was not a straightforward wage-deduction dispute. The petitioner denied that any deduction had been made, disputed the applicability of Section 14(3), questioned the territorial and statutory jurisdiction of the Referee, and relied upon the contractual Mumbai-jurisdiction clause.

Applying Gupta Electric, the Court held that disputed and potentially intricate questions of law and fact were inappropriate for determination by the Referee in the exercise of the limited jurisdiction under the Shops and Establishments Act.

Consequently, the order admitting the claim after condoning the delay could not be sustained.

All connected applications were disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.