K. M. THAKER, J. Heard Mrs. Parikh, learned Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N. J. Shah, learned A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. S. Vasavada, learned Advocate for respondent No.3. Rule. Mr. Vasavada, Mr. Desai and Mr. Shah have waived service of notice of Rule. At the request and with the consent of all parties the petition is taken up for final hearing.

1.1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs :

"(9/A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 13-9-2007 issued by the respondent A.L.C. and authority under Payment of Wages Act, Mahabubnagar (State-Andhra Pradesh) in P.W. Application NO.8 of 2007 (Annexure-A) and show-cause notice No. E/824/2006 dated 10-8-2006 issued to the petitioner by the A.L.C. Mahabubnagar (State-A.P.) under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (R.E.C.) Act, (Annexure-B).

(9/B) Your Lordship be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned notice dated 13-9-2007 (Annexure-A) and show-cause notice dated 10-8-2006 (Annexure-B) during pendency of hearing and final disposal of the petition."

2. The facts leading to the presentation of this petition are as follows

2.1. The respondent No.4 had invited tenders for execution of certain works.

The petitioner had submitted its tender and after following the prescribed procedure, the tender of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner came to be awarded a contract for executing the specified jobs.

2.2. The petitioner had, for the purpose of executing the said contract, entered into a sub-contract with M/s. K. G. Reddy. The execution of the contracted work was undertaken during the period between November, 2000 and February. 2002.

2.3. It appears that so as to discharge his obligation, the sub-contractor M/s. K. G. Reddy had recruited and employed certain labourers who were, as per the case of said persons, recruited by the sub-contractor in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

2.4. After having recruited the labourers i. e. the concerned persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the said sub-contractor deployed them at Udhana-Surat for executing the contract awarded to present petitioner. Thus, the provisions under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "1979 Act") gets attracted in present case.

2.5. It is claimed that after the contract work was executed, the labourers engaged by the aforesaid sub-contractor were discharged, and subsequently, they went back to their home-State i.e. Andhra Pradesh. It further transpires from the record that when the said workmen were discharged and before they started their journey for their home-State, they were, as alleged by them, not completely paid their wages for the period during which they were recruited and engaged by the sub-contractor.

2.6. On account of such non-payment, the said workmen filed, in their home-State i.e. Andhra Pradesh, a group of applications, under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. After presentation of the group of applications, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mehbubnagar, Andhra Pradesh seems to have issued notice dated 13-9-2007. The said notice is issued against present opponent No. 1 and other opponents include present respondent No. 4 and the said sub-contractor M/s. K. G. Reddy.

2.7. It deserves to be mentioned that after having received the said notice dated 13-9-2007, present petitioner has submitted its reply dated 17-10-2007 opposing the said payment of wages applications and it has been, inter alia.

contended that the said applications are not maintainable on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction in light of the fact that the cause of action, as per submission of present petitioner, has arisen in the State of Gujarat. Besides, the above referred notice in connection with the said paymen