Case at a Glance
A staff union claimed unpaid minimum wages for 53 workers of Canara Bank for April 2019 to August 2022, filing the claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 beyond the six-month limit. The Regional Labour Commissioner condoned the delay and awarded Rs 46,62,093 to 36 workers, but the Bombay High Court cut the arrears down to the six months before the claim was filed. The Supreme Court held that once delay is condoned, the authority is free to grant the full relief the facts justify, restored the Commissioner’s award and dismissed the Bank’s appeal.
The Canara Bank Staff Union filed a claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on behalf of 53 workmen, alleging underpayment of minimum wages for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 August 2022. The claim was filed on 31 October 2022, beyond six months from when the amounts became payable. On 18 September 2024, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Pune condoned the delay, noting that the workers belonged to a “poor and illiterate section of the Society” with limited access to legal remedies, and allowed the claim for 36 workers: Rs 42,38,265 in arrears plus 10% compensation of Rs 4,23,828, a total of Rs 46,62,093.
The Bank challenged the award before the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 1318 of 2025). On 1 April 2025, the High Court upheld the award in principle and treated non-payment of minimum wages as a recurring cause of action, but, relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 08 SC CK 0007 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava, limited the arrears to the six months before filing, that is, from May 2022 onward, with compensation on the reduced sum. Both the Union and the Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
When a Minimum Wages Authority condones delay under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, can the arrears still be restricted to the six months preceding the claim?
Condonation Removes the Fetter on Relief
The Court first upheld the Commissioner’s decision to condone delay, which the High Court had not disturbed, given the workers’ circumstances. It then held that limitation bars the filing of a claim, not the extent of relief: once the delay is condoned under the proviso to Section 20(2), “there are no fetters on its power to grant relief as prayed for in the application”. Describing limitation as “a statute of repose”, the Court said that “Any view to the contrary would render the delay condonation power meaningless.”
The Court distinguished Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538, as cases where no limitation period was prescribed and there was no express power to condone delay. It also distinguished Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, AIR 1960 SC 260, which concerned refusal to condone delay, not limits on relief after condonation. The authority, it held, “was under no legal compulsion to limit the benefits”. The Bank’s plea that a settlement barred the claim was not considered, as its counsel conceded that it had never been raised before the Commissioner or the High Court.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Commissioner was justified in condoning the delay in filing the claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
- Once delay is condoned, the authority may grant the full relief justified, and arrears need not be confined to the six months before filing.
- Tarsem Singh and Yogendra Shrivastava do not apply where the statute prescribes limitation and expressly permits condonation.
- The Union’s appeal was allowed and the Commissioner’s award of Rs 46,62,093 was restored; the Bank’s appeal was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects low-paid workers who approach the authority late from losing most of their wage arrears.
- It clarifies that the ‘recurring cause of action’ cap on arrears does not override an express statutory power to condone delay.
- It reminds employers that new defences, such as a settlement, cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Workers and Unions
- File minimum wage claims as early as possible, but explain the reasons for any delay clearly so it can be condoned.
- If delay is condoned, press for arrears for the entire period of underpayment.
For Counsel
- Distinguish Tarsem Singh where the statute itself provides a limitation period and a condonation power.
- Raise all defences, including settlements, before the Commissioner; they may not be heard later.
Key Takeaways
- Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 sets a six-month limit for claims, with power to admit late claims for sufficient cause.
- After condonation, the authority is not bound to restrict arrears to six months.
- Limitation bars the remedy; it does not cut down relief once the delay is excused.
- A plea not taken before the authority or High Court will not be entertained at the final stage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the time limit for a claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act?
A claim must ordinarily be filed within six months of the date on which the wages became payable, but the authority may admit a later claim if the applicant shows sufficient cause.
Did the High Court allow any arrears?
Yes, but it limited them to the six months before the claim was filed, from May 2022 onward. The Supreme Court set aside that limitation.
Why did the Bank’s settlement argument fail?
The Court declined to consider it because the Bank’s counsel conceded that it had not been raised before the Commissioner or the High Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court read the condonation power in Section 20 as meaningful: if a late claim is admitted because the workers had sufficient cause, they cannot then be told they will be paid only for the last six months. The 36 workers get the full award the Commissioner made.
Practical takeaway: In minimum wage claims, the decisive fight is over condonation of delay; once delay is condoned, the claim for the full period of underpayment stands on its merits.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com