- (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 1st August, 2012 passed by the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu in a purported Criminal Appeal No. 42/2012.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 21st April, 2010, the petitioners filed an application under Section 21(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Act of 1948') against the contesting respondents before the Authority under the Act of 1948. Counsel submitted that the case was registered as MWA/1/2010 and after trial was decided on 11th November, 2011. It is submitted that vide order dated 11th November, 2011, the respondents no. 2 and 3 were directed to make payment of minimum wages as short paid to the petitioners. It is submitted that for a period of about 8 months, no proceedings were taken for compliance of the order dated 11th November, 2011 passed by the competent authority under the Act of 1948. Subsequently, however, surprisingly a Criminal Appeal was filed and entertained by the District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The criminal appeal came to be registered as 42/2012. It is submitted that on service of notice of criminal appeal, the petitioners put in appearance and filed objections by way of an application specifically stating that an appeal more particularly a criminal appeal was not maintainable against the order dated 11th November, 2011. It was pointed out to the learned Session Judge that in terms of Section 20(6) of the Act of 1948, every direction of the Authority under the Act of 1948 was final and consequently, such direction could not be put to challenge as the Act of 1948 did not provide for a statutory appeal and a writ petition before the High Court inter alia under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would alone be maintainable. Counsel for the petitioners submits that appeal is creature of the statute and as the Act of 1948 does not provide for an appeal, the learned Session Judge, Jhunjhunu had no jurisdiction to either entertain or hear an appeal against an order passed under Section 20(6) by the Authority under the Act. He submits that in this view of matter, the appeal on the face of it is not maintainable and the order dated 1st August, 2012 passed therein without jurisdiction. However, it appears that on the matter coming before the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu on 1st August, 2012, even while the objections were filed by the respondents in the appeal (the petitioners herein), a request was made that the matter be adjourned as the outstation counsel who was to argue on the objections as to the maintainability of the appeal against the order dated 11th November, 2011, was not available that day. Simultaneously, the appellants in the appeal (respondents herein) also sought time to satisfy the court as to how an appeal was maintainable. The learned Session Judge, in view of both the parties seeking time to argue on the objection as to the maintainability of the appeal against the order dated 11th November, 2011, adjourned the matter to 6th August, 2012 but in the meantime, passed an ad-interim stay order till 6th August, 2012 against the order dated 11th November, 2011. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 6th August, 2012, the matter has been again adjourned to 4th September, 2012 and the ad interim order extended till then. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order and taking into consideration the fact that objections as to the maintainability of the appeal have been filed before the learned District and Session Judge, Jhunjhunu, I would deem it fit and proper not to address the merits of the writ petition but instead direct the learned District and Session Judge, Jhunjhunu to dispose of, on the next date the objections filed by the respondents in the appeal (petitioners herein) to the maintainability of the criminal appeal against the order dated 11th November, 2011. In the event, the petitioners are aggrieved of the order passed by the Session Judge, Jhunjhunu on their objections to the maintainability of the appeal against the order dated 11th November, 2011, they would be free to approach this Court by way of a writ petition.
(3.) THE writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application needs no address consequently.;