Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) FOUR writ petitions have been filed by the State of U. P. through Prabhagiya Nideshak, Samajik Vaniki Prabhag. Meerut, i.e. the Department of Social Forestry, challenging certain proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
(2.) IN short, what aggrieves the State of U. P. is that the District Judge has unsuited the State of U. P. as an appellant for the simple reason that prior to filing an appeal under section 17, the condition precedent is that under sub-section 1-A of section 17 of the Act, aforesaid, the memoranda of appeal must be accompanied by a certificate on the claim which has been awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority under section 15. The contention in the writ petitions is that the: case itself is devoid of merits and the claims cannot be awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority and the stipulation that the appeal must be accompanied by a certificate of deposit of the amount on the claim as awarded, is an onerous condition and, thus, in effect, a writ is desired from this Court for a waiver of the claim prior to consideration of the appeal. ' IN the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is afraid that the Court cannot make different standards between employers whether they are industrials or the State of U. P. or the Union of INdia. No two sets of law operate for one class of citizens and another for the State. Both will be judged by the same standard and if the requirement of the law is laid down for an employer, even if it is the State, the employer will be bound by the contents of law. The Slate of U. P. is, thus no exception. As the four writ petitions of the State of U. P. raise common issues, they are being taken up for consideration by the Court by this order on all of them One set of orders is dated 26 July, 1993 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority is case No. 211 of 1990 and 212 of 1990 (Annexure 4 to each of the respective writ petitions). In one writ petition, the workman concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Tara Chand and in the other writ petition, the workman concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Gyan Singh. In the other two writ petitions, the order impugned are dated 17 November, 1993. This order of the Payment of Wages Authority (also Annexure 4 to the respective writ petitions), though the orders are separate, have been passed in Case No. 33 of 1993 and Case No. 34 of 1993 In the writ petitions which impugn the proceedings, the workmen concerned are Krishna Pal s/o Dhruv Singh and Messrs Bal Kishore and Sunil Kumar, parentage of the first is not given, and the second as s/o Rajpal. Whatever be the worth of the claim, the Payment of Wages Authority by orders dated 26 July, 1993 and 17 November, 1993 allowed wages as were due to the workmen and, in addition, also awarded compensation as penalty. On each of the claim petition, the amount as awarded to each of the workman, being the wages due, the compensation and the gross amount which was awarded to the workman concerned, is reproduced In the table below : JUDGEMENT_1060_AWC2_1994Image1.jpg Against each of the orders, aforesaid, against which a respective petition has been filed, being the set of orders dated 26 July, 1993 and 17 November, 1993, the State of U. P. filled appeals before the District Judge, Meerut. being Misc. Appeals No. 262/93, 263/93, 25/93 and 24/93. At the time when the memoranda of appeal was presented before the District Judge, each appeal was accompanied with an application of the State of U. P. that it be allowed one month's time to pay the amount awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority. Apparently, the indulgence to pay the amount so awarded was granted by the appellate Court, but despite the assurance to deposit the amount, no deposit was made by the State of U.P.
(3.) WHEN It came to consider the appeals of the State of U.P., the learned District Judge, Meerut. in each of his four orders, placed on record, in effect, that it was admitted by counsel for State of U.P. that unless the memoranda of appeal under section 17 la accompanied by a certificate of deposit of claim so awarded, a requirement under sub-section (1-A), the appeal would not be maintainable. The District Judge has also placed on record that the State of U. P. applied for extension of the time to make the deposit and file the certificate, but, it has not done so. Thus, as the State of U. P. took time to bring and file the certificate of deposit, reference section 17 (1-A), but, did not do so, the appeal was dismissed, by the District Judge, was not being maintainable. It is against this order that the writ petitions have been filed. The Court has heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. V. Malviya, Advocate, on the writ petitions filed by the State of UP. The Court does not find any error or irregularity in the order of the District Judge in appeals so as to issue notice on this petition to permit the State of U.P., with the aid of a writ of certiorari, to question the correctness of the orders. It is for two reasons that this Court declines to interfere with the orders of the learned District Judge ;