ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions since raise the common question of law, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order after hearing counsel for the parties.
(2.) The fact that emerges in both the cases are that the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act have allowed the workman's application for payment of wages and compensation thereof under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by Prescribed Authority, the employer preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. The provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which is relevant for the purpose of wages, clearly speaks that no appeal shall lie against an order or direction issued for payment of wages by the prescribed authority, unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. In both the cases it is admitted fact that the memorandum of appeal when presented had not been accompanied by the certificate of the deposit issued by the prescribed authority. It is also admitted fact that till the date of filing of the appeal, neither the certificate as stated above, nor amount was actually deposited by the appellant-employer.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer contended that it is admitted that amount was actually deposited subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The appellate authority has taken a view that since the provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the Act, referred to above have not been complied with, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the employer argued that it may be true that at the time when the appeal was presented, it was not proper, inasmuch as neither the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by the certificate, referred to in Section 17(1-A) of the Act, nor the amount sought to be appealed against was deposited before the appellate authority or the prescribed authority, but since the amount has subsequently been deposited, the view taken by the appellate authority that the appeal is not maintainable, deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel representing the workman has raised on objection that the contention raised on behalf of the employer's counsel cannot be accepted because once an appeal is not accompanied with by a certificate or amount is not deposited before the presentation of memorandum of appeal, the definitive clause of Section 17(1-A) of the Act will apply as "No appeal under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against," and in view of the matter the subsequent deposit of the amount cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that there is yet another reason for rejection of the appeal that in case the amount has not been deposited at the time of the presentation of memorandum of appeal as has been found in the instant cases, the appeals were filed after time for filing an appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act has expired, therefore the appeals ought to have been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that in the present case the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply because the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936,is special law and it does not provide an application of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.;