B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31-10-1982 passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur in an appeal preferred under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1952 (for short the Act) and the order dated 5-6-1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 15 of the Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple. Respondent No. 4 Nizamuddin made an application under section 15 (2) of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 5,569-66 as the wages due to him from the petitioner in connection with the weaving of the carpets. It was alleged that the petitioner as an employer was not paying the said amount to -Respondent No. 4, hence the necessity for making the application. THE said application for payment of wages was contested by the petitioner denying the allegations including that the Respondent No. 4 was not an employee of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not the employer of Respondent No. 4. It was also stated that the Respondent No. 4 was employed on the basis of contract and that due to some defects in the carpets there were some deductions made in the amounts and it was alleged that after adjustment of the entire amount only Rs.385-60 were payable to him by the petitioner. It appears that a number of dates were fixed and ultimately 8-1-1981 was the date fixed and on that date the Presiding Officer was on leave. Consequently 19-2-1981 was the date fixed and on that date and thereafter on 19-2-1981, 26-2-1981 and 28-2-1981 the Presiding Officer was on leave, hence the case could not be taken up. Again 3-3-1981 was the date fixed and the next date was 6-3-1981. on which date a reply was filed, 12-3-1981 was the date fixed and again on 23-3-1981 the Presiding Officer was out of station. Similarly he was out of station on 25-3-1981 and also on 2-4-1981 and ultimately 10-4-1981 was the date fixed when the petitioner was absent and the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against him and on 7-5-1981 evidence of Respondent No. 4 was taken and 26-5-1981 was the next date fixed and on that date arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 5-6-81 the ex-parte order was pronounced against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the ex-parte order dated 5-6-1981 under section 17 of the Act but the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 31-10-1981 as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certificate that the amount payable under the order or direction has been deposited. It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that under section 17 (1-A) of the Act it was provided that unless the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant had paid the amount, under the direction, the appeal would not be maintainable, But in the instant case the petitioner had made an application to the Prescribed Authority for making a deposit, but the Prescribed Authority rejected the same by stating that the amount under the direction or the order against which appeal was filed, cannot be deposited before him. True copy of the application and the order passed thereon has been filed as Annexure '5' to the writ petition Hence the petitioner made an effort and ultimately another application was filed before the District Judge and some time was granted to make payment by the date fixed. But by that date the petitioner was not in a position to deposit the requisite amount on account of unsound financial position and under law no amount can be deposited before the appellate court. He accordingly urged that the Prescribed Authority erroneously rejected the application lor payment of the amount so required and the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is based on the fact that the petitioner did not make the deposit of the amount asked to be deposited under the direction of the order appealed against. THE bonafide mistake appears to be of the Prescribed Authority who did not permit the petitioner to deposit the same and the petitioner should not suffer for the same. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, urged that the impugned order was correct and that the petitioner did not deposit the amount before the Prescribed Authority inspite of the time being granted by the appellate court, he did not make deposit. Consequently the appeal has correctly been dismissed and the ex-parte order passed by the Prescribed Authority was also correct. This Court need not interfere under the circumstances of the case under Article 226 of the Constitution.;