The provision of alternative remedy under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. Condonation of delay in filing a claim petition under the Payment of Wages Act should be granted liberally, especially when there is no prejudice to third parties.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the employees of Calcutta Port Trust who claimed payment of overtime wages for 48 hours per week during the period from January 1968 to 30th September 1983. The petitioners though preferred the aforesaid claim before the various authorities of the Calcutta Port Trust but according to the petitioners no step was taken up by the respondent, Calcutta Port Trust Authorities for the redressal of their grievances. Accordingly, petitioners filed a claim application before the respondent No. 1 claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,24,72,713/- as it was the contention of the said petitioners that the said amount was wrongfully deducted from the overtime wages of the petitioners during the period from January 1968, to 30th September 1983.

( 2 ) SINCE the aforesaid claim of the petitioners was beyond the statutory period of limitation, a prayer was also made by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the application before the authorities. It has been stated by the petitioners that the learned lawyer representing the petitioners before the respondent No. 1 did not inform the petitioners about the date fixed by the respondent No. 1 for hearing the application filed by the petitioners for deciding the issue of limitation and as such none of the petitioners could appear on the said day before the respondent No. 1. Furthermore, the lawyer representing the petitioners also did not appear before the respondent No. 1 without assigning any reason. Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the time of hearing of the application before the respondent No. 1, the prayer for condonation of delay made on behalf of the petitioners in filing the claim application was rejected.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 passed an order to the following effect: ?that the case be and the same is dismissed being barred by limitation and the application is not admitted. ? Challenging the validity and/or legality of the said order of the respondent No. 1, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court.

( 4 ) THE petition was moved on 17th June 1992, before this Court when learned single Judge of this Court passed an Order directing the parties to file affidavits in the matter. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel of the respondents never raised any objection on the ground of maintainability of the writ petition.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, when the matter was taken up for hearing, a specific objection was raised on behalf of the respondents on the ground of maintainability of the writ petition. Learned advocate of the Port Trust Authorities submitted that the present writ petition is not at all maintainable in view of the fact that the impugned order passed by the authority of Payment of Wages Act, dismissing the application made by the petitioners under section 15 (2) of the said Act is an appealable order and in terms of section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act an appeal should have been preferred. Learned counsel of the respondent Port Trust Authorities submitted that the petitioners herein cannot challenge the order of the respondent No. 1 in the instant writ petition without preferring the statutory appeal as has been provided specifically under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioners cannot avoid the provision of statutory appeal under any circumstances and since in the instant case petitioners did not prefer an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) MR. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 was not an order on merit under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, appeal would only lie in the event application filed under section 15 (2) is decided on merit. Referring to the order passed by the respondent