MAJMUDAR, J. - (1.) SINCE common point is involved in all these petitions, all these petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE proceedings in these cases are pending before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as the respondents have approached the said authority for getting various reliefs. During the pendency of these proceedings, on behalf of the petitioner Management, an application was submitted that the provisions of Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to the Institution as it is an educational institution and therefore in that view of the matter, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to decide the applications filed by the concerned applicants. THE authority under the Payment of Wages Act has decided the application about applicability of the Act and preliminary point is decided against the petitioner by holding that the provisions under the Payment of Wages Act is applicable to the facts of the present case. THE learned Authority has considered the definition of industry and has also considered the case law cited by both the sides and ultimately reached to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to decide the issue as the provisions of the Act is applicable. THE aforesaid interlocutory order is subject matter of challenge in all these writ petitions. Learned counsel Mr. Sharma appearing for the petitioner in this group of matters vehemently submitted that the petitioner Institution cannot be said to be a factory and that application submitted before the Authority is not maintainable. Mr. Sharma, further submitted that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to decide the issue in question, and therefore, it should be held that application submitted by the other side is not maintainable and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to decide the controversy. Mr. Sharma also submitted that definition of industry under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be made applicable to the petitioner Institution. He further submitted that the provisions of the Act is applicable to the Institution only w. e. f. 25. 5. 2007 and prior to that date the Act was not applicable. It is also submitted that in any case, the petitioner Institution cannot be described as a factory and provisions of the Factories Act has no application to the present case. He, therefore, submitted that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has not considered the legal aspect in a proper manner and has wrongly held that it has jurisdiction to decide the applications. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. In my view, the order in question is only interlocutory in nature as the main proceedings have not been decided finally. This Court would not like to entertain this petition at this stage while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order in question cannot be said to be an interlocutory order as it is a final order. In order to substantiate his say Mr. Sharma has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra; (1977) 4 SCC 551. So far as the aforesaid decision is concerned, it is in connection with Section 397 (2) of the Cr. P. C. , wherein revision against interlocutory order is provided. While interpreting the said provision of Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. , the Supreme Court held that certain orders are not interlocutory order, therefore, revision against such order is maintainable. Relying on the said judgment, Mr. Sharma submitted that the impugned order of authority cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. In my view, the said submission is absolutely misconceived. So far as provisions of Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. , is concerned, while interpreting the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the nature of orders which are held to be interlocutory and which are not considered to be interlocutory and whether revision against such order is maintainable under Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. , however by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is a final order especially when the original applications are yet to be decided on merits and only a preliminary point is decided by the Authority under the Act by holding that application is maintainable. As a matter of fact, it is always desirable that the Authority should give finding on all the issues as provided under O. 14 R. 2 CPC so that as and when the matter is taken up further against the final order, the appellate Court or the Court in which the proceedings have been taken further can decide all the issues involved in the matter, and therefore, it is desirable that the finding should be given on all the points involved in the matter. The learned Authority though, of course decided the preliminary point at the insistence of present petitioner but it is now going to proceed to decide the main matter on its own merits. Thus, this Court would not like to intercept the proceedings at this stage. Under the circumstances, all these petitions against interlocutory order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act does not require interference by this Court by entertaining these petitions at this stage. However, as and when final order is passed by the Authority and if such final order is against the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge such final order on all points including the point of jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that at this stage, this Court would not like to enter into this point and it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same if at all final order is passed against the petitioner on all points including the point raised in these cases. All these petitions are accordingly dismissed.. ;