R.S. Pathak, C.J.
1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and arises out of proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
The respondent. Vidya Sagar. is employed as a Mali with the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, He applied under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. claiming a sum of Rs. 2,230/- as overtime pay. The application was resisted on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred by time. The Authority, hearing the appliaction, held that although, the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in making it. Against that order the petitioner applies under Section 115 of the Code.
2. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the applicants before me urges that the respondent's application was clearly barred by time and the Au-thority acted without jurisdiction in condoning the delay and holding the application to be within time. It seems to me that if the jurisdiction under Section 115 is invoked, the applicant must show not only that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below but also that the interests of justice call for interference by the High Court. So far as the second requirement is concerend. I am not satisfied that it is established in the present case. There should be something to show that besides the applicant being entitled to a decision in his favour on the question of jurisdiction, the interests of justice require that this Court should interfere with the impugned order. The powers of the Court under Section, 115 of the Code are to be exercised in its discretion, and discretionary powers should be exercised in the interests of justice. The learned Advocate General relies upon Sita-ram Rarncharan v. M. N. Nagrashna, AIR 1960 SC 260. That was a converse case and clearly distinguishable. There, the application made by the workmen under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act had been dismissed by the Authority as barred by time. A petition under Articles 226 and 227 by the workmen was also dismissed. Thereafter, the workmen proceeded in appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court held that on the failure of the workmen to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application under Section 15. the claim could not be entertained. The revision application before me is directed against an order holding that the application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act should be treated as within time. The view taken by me is fortified by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarpanch. Lonand Grampancha-yat v. Ramgiri Gosavi, AIR 1968 SC 222,
3. The revision petition is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.