D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition, the order dated 24-5-2000 of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is under challenge. Various grounds of challenge to the impugned order are enumerated in the petition.

( 2 ) SHRI DJ Bhatt appears for the respondent no. 1 and he raises a preliminary objection that the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of provision for appeal contained under sec. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. His objection is that, since there is a statutory provision for appeal against the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the petitioner should have availed of that alternative remedy which is efficacious, and since the alternative statutory remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner, this Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 or under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) SHRI RV Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that, in appropriate cases jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court under Art. 226 as well as under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Few cases were cited by Shri Desai in support of his contention. A judgment of the Supreme Court was cited by Shri DJ Bhatt in support of his preliminary objection and another pronouncement of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court was also cited by him. There can be no dispute that the impugned order under challenge was passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act on an application under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Sec. 17 of the Act provides for a remedy of appeal. Sec. 17 (1) provides that, an appeal against the order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-sec (2) of sec. 15 or against the direction made under sub-sec (3) of sec. 4 of that section may be preferred within 30 days of the date on which the order or direction was made in presidency town before the Court of Small Cause and else where before the District Court. There is no dispute regarding existence of alternative remedy for filing appeal. However, Shri Desai has referred to several decisions in support of his contention that, it is a fit case where jurisdiction should be exercised under Art. 226 as well as under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties are being discussed as under :

( 4 ) SHRI DJ Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the case of FIDA HUSSAIN v. PRESIDING OFFICER 1996 LAB. I. C. 503. However, this case does not help Shri Bhatt because it was altogether on a different point. Here, the question involved was, whether an appeal under sec. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is to be filed before the District Court or before the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. The appeal was filed before the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court and it was held that, such appeal is incompetent and the Industrial Tribunal has no appellate jurisdiction either under the Industrial Disputes Act or under any other law to entertain an appeal against the order under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. This case, therefore, does not deal with the situation whether jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised on the facts and circumstances of the case before me.

( 5 ) THE second case relied upon by Shri Bhatt is Supreme Courts verdict in KARNATAKA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES v. UNION OF INDIA (2000)10 S. C. C. 13. In this case the Apex Court held that, the question involved in the appeal was regarding interpretation of provisions of the statute and the provisions were interpreted by various decisions rendered by the Apex Court. The Supreme Court observed that, in any case when there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, there is no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed by-passing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. Thus, the ratio o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document