S.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated December 2, 1981 passed by the Authority under the payment of wages Act, 1936 (here -inaftei referred to as the 'Authority') in case No. PW A/74 of 1980. The case aforesaid arises out of an application filed by 408 employees of Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd, Sri Ganganagar under section 15 of the Payment of wages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner viz, the Executive Officer, the Ganganagar Sugar Mills 1 td, had failed to make the payment of the wages of the applicants for the period from 15th October 1979 to 4th November, 1979. In the said proceed the petitioner filed an application raising preliminary objections One objection was with regared to the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the application and it was submitted that an industrial dispute with regared to the same matter was pending before the Arbitrator and that in view of the pendency of the said industrial dispute the the said issue could not be raised before the Authority. Another objection was that Shri Mahadev Prasad Garg, General Secretary of the Ganganagar Sugar Employees Union could not present the application and that the application had no been presented by the authorised persons. The Authority framed preliminary issues on the basis of the said objections. The said preliminary issues have been decided against the petitioner by the Authority by its order dated December 2, 1981. By the order afore said, the Authority has held that in the present case, the case of the applicants was that they had token from the time office of the petitioner whereas the petitioner has denied the presence of the workmen and has alleged their absence without leave and has also denied that their agitation was for justified demands. The Authority has held that the question whether in such circumstances the appellants are entitled to their wages for the ensuring period is definite a question incidental for the determination of their wages and the Authority had jurisdiction to decide the application. The Authority has also held that the application filed by Shri Mabadev Prasad Garg was properly filed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Authority on the preliminary issues, the petitioner has filed this wri petition.
(2.) A notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why writ petition be not admitted In response to the said notice Shri D.K. Pariha and appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.
(3.) I have heard Shri A.K. Mathur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Parihar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Mathur has challenged the correctness of the finding recor -n ded by the Authority on the issue of jurisdiction of the Authority to entrtait the application under section 15 of the Act and has contended that since an industrial dispute is pending before the Arbit(sic)ator and in the said dispute, the question as to the payment of wages of the workmen of the Sugar Mills for the period from 15th October 1979 to 4th November, 1979 is to be decided, the same question cannot be raised before the Authority and, therefore, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by the workmen under Section 15 of the Act. Shri Mathur has submitted that if the Authority is allowed to proceed with the workman under Section 15 of the Act, there was likelihood of inconsistent orders being passed one by the Authority and the other by the Arbitrator.;