- (1.) THIS is a writ application by the petitioners Loonaram and four others jn a matter under the Payment of Wages Act.
(2.) THE petitioners' case was that one Gopal Singh had taken a. contract from the government of Rajasthan for constructing a wing of the building of the Maharaja college, Jaipur and had in that connection, employed about a hundred persons for the said construction work. Their case further was that, among the persons so employed, more than 20 "sangatrash" (masons) had beea employed by him and the petitioners belonged to this class of workers. As for the work which these persons were called upon to do it was mentioned that they had to cut stone-slabs and dress them, and do carving work thereon, if and as, it was necessary. The grievance of the petitioners was that Gopal Singh had paid them their Wages upto July, 1958, but failed to pay the same for the month of August, 1958, with the result that a sum of Rs. 391/12/- was payable to them as per details given below: JUDGEMENT_13_TLRAJ0_1961Html1.htm Aggrieved by this state of affairs, the petitioners made an application to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act IV of 1936) under Section 15 (2) praying for recovery of their unpaid wages, as set out above. This application was opposed by Gopal Singh, the plea being that although the petitioners had been employed as masons and worked as such, their dues for the month of August, 1958, had been paid to the 'mistri' through whom they had been engaged, and so nothing was to be further paid to them on that account. It further appears that the question of the jurisdiction of the Authority under the payment of wages Act to take cognizance of the petitioners' application was also taken up before the said Authority, the argument being that the petitioners were not employed in any factory within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of Set. 1 of the act. This contention prevailed with the Authority, and, consequently, the petitioners' application was dismissed by the Authority.
(3.) THE petitioners then went up in appeal to the learned Pistrict Judge, Jaipur, under Section 17 of the Act. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Authority had not decided the petitioners' application on the merits and therefore, no appeal was maintainable under Section 17 (1 ). The petitioners assail this decision by the present writ application.;