KANTA BHATNAGAR,J. - (1.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the Order dated June 13, 1986 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (here in after to be referred as '(he Authority') by which the objection of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the application of the non -petitioners No. 2 to 11 under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was over -ruled.
(2.) THE petitioner, a registered company under the Company Act, having a Textile Mill at Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan, dismissed some workmen from service on the ground that they were guilty of serious acts of misconduct under the Certified Standing orders of the Company. A reference in a matter relating to one Hukma Ram and the management was pending in the Labour Court Bikaner. The management, taking it to be proceedings pending before the Labour Court made an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (to be referred as the Act here in after) for approval of the action taken by the petitioner in dismissing certain workmen including non -petitioners No. 2 to II from service, A preliminary objection was raised by the workmen so dismissed, in the Labour Court on the ground that 21 persons against whom approval was sought under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act were not the workmen concerned in the dispute and therefore Section 33(2)(b) was not attracted in their matter. The Management objected to the right of the workmen to raise such a preliminary objection, but the Court did not agree with the plea of the Management and held that just as an employer can raise such a preliminary objection, the workmen are also equally competent to raise such a preliminary objection in the proceedings of approval of their dismissal and the Court is bound to answer it. The finding of the learned Labour Judge was that, 21 persons, whose order of dismissal was sought to be approved by the Management, were not workmen concerned in. the dispute and as such the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act were not attracted in the matter. Accordingly the learned Judge held that in such an eventuality the Court was not required to consider the applications further on merit and directed (he Management to withdraw the applications with further order that in case it is not so done the applications will be returned by the clerk of the Court. On December 19, 1985 non -petitioners No. 2 to 11 filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages from the date of the order of the dismissal up to February 27, 1985, the date of passing of the aforesaid order Annexure -I by the Labour Court. The petitioner was directed to file the reply. In reply the objection about the maintainability of the application was taken on two grounds. Firstly, on the question of limitation and secondly, on the Jack of jurisdiction of the Authority to decide such a matter. Both the objections, were over -ruled. That caused grievance to the petitioner and he has approached this Court.
(3.) IT is only the finding of the Authority on the question of its jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act in the matter, which has been assailed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.;