Liberal construction of sufficient cause limits Article 227 interference with discretionary condonation orders.

"Sufficient cause" under the proviso to section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act is to be construed liberally, and delay may be admitted where the applicant shows bona fide pursuit of the grievance and a mistaken but honest belief that relief would come through official intervention. On the stated facts, the Authority validly exercised discretion to condone the delay only in part, limiting relief to claims arising after 1 January 1961. Supervisory intervention under Article 227 is confined to keeping the tribunal within jurisdiction and is not available merely because another view is possible; no arbitrariness, perversity, excess of jurisdiction, or grave miscarriage of justice was shown, so interference was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in presenting an application under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 could be condoned on the facts shown; and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the Authority's exercise of discretion.

Analysis: The proviso to section 20(2) requires applications to be presented within six months, but permits admission beyond that period where sufficient cause is shown. The expression "sufficient cause" is to receive a liberal construction, and the Authority's discretion must be exercised judicially, with vigilance, circumspection and sound judgment. On the facts, the employees had persistently pursued their grievance through government inspectors and superior officers, and their delay was attributed to an honest though mistaken belief that relief would be obtained through official intervention. The Authority therefore condoned the delay only for claims arising after January 1, 1961. The supervisory power under Article 227 is limited to keeping the tribunal within jurisdiction, and does not permit interference merely because a different view on the facts is possible. No arbitrariness, perversity, excess of jurisdiction, or grave miscarriage of justice was shown.

Conclusion: The delay was validly condoned in part, and the High Court was not bound to interfere under Article 227.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to interfere with the Authority's partial condonation of delay was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "sufficient cause" in a condonation proviso must be construed liberally, but interference with the tribunal's discretionary order is warranted only when the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or in excess of jurisdiction.

---