S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order (Ex.2) dated November 4, 1981 of the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short the Authority').
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Ramlal submitted an application before the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'the Act' herein). He claimed Rs. 4200/ - as compensation amount, interest and costs. He sought direction under Sub -Section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. The application was contested by the petitioner on various grounds. An objection was raised in the reply to the effect that the Authority had got no jurisdiction to go into the question of crop share and to decide it and further that the dispute relating to that could only be adjudicated by a revenue court. By the order (Ex 2) dated November 2, 1981 direction for the payment of the sum of Rs. 14, 668.50p to respondent No. 1 was made. This amount consisted of the wages, overtime wages and costs. The petitioner has filed the writ petition as aforesaid for quashing the order (Ex.2) dated November 2, 1981.
(3.) A show cause notice was issued to the respondent. In pursuance of that, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. When the case came up for admission on April 2, 1982, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition should not be entertained as an appeal lay under Section 17(1) of the Act against the impugned order (Ex.2). Today, when the case was taken up for admission, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 reiterated the aforesaid preliminary objection that as the petitioner failed to avail of the remedy of appeal under Section 17(1) of the Act, the writ petition should not be entertained. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously oppossed the preliminary objection and submitted that as the Act is not applicable to the wages of a person employed in agricultural field, the impugned order (Ex.2) is absolutely without jurisdiction and void and so, the existence of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act does not stand in the way of the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 'The period for preferring the appeal is 30 days from the date of the direction or order sought to be appealed against and that before preferring the appeal, the petitioner is required to deposit the amout for which direction has been made under Section 17(1A) of the Act and so, because of these reason, the writ petition should be entertained.;