https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171684 Ignorance or mistake of law could not by itself secure condonation of delay unless the applicant explained the entire period of inaction. The proviso to section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was construed on the same principle as section 5 of the Limitation Act, requiring a satisfactory explanation for the whole delay up to the filing of the application. Even if ignorance of law was capable of amounting to sufficient cause in a proper case, the applicants still had to explain the delay after they became aware of the relevant legal position. The factual finding that no satisfactory explanation was offered for that later period defeated the claim for condonation. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:15:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171684 Ignorance or mistake of law could not by itself secure condonation of delay unless the applicant explained the entire period of inaction. The proviso to section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act was construed on the same principle as section 5 of the Limitation Act, requiring a satisfactory explanation for the whole delay up to the filing of the application. Even if ignorance of law was capable of amounting to sufficient cause in a proper case, the applicants still had to explain the delay after they became aware of the relevant legal position. The factual finding that no satisfactory explanation was offered for that later period defeated the claim for condonation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171684