JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil revision petition is directed against the judgement dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.23/2004 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/non-applicant (for brevity, "the non-applicant"), the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by the Authority, PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT , Bharatpur (for brevity, "the Authority") in Case No.PWA/22/2000 allowing the application filed by the petitioner/applicant (for brevity, "the applicant"), has been reversed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application under section 15(2) of the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT , 1936 (for brevity, "the Act of 1936") against the non-applicant stating therein that despite working as driver on the tractor owned by the non-applicant, he has not been paid salary @ Rs.1,550/- per month from 15.07.1999 to 15.04.2000. While allowing the application, the Authority directed the non-applicant to pay the applicant a sum of Rs.13,950/- towards arrears of wages and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards penalty. The civil miscellaneous appeal preferred thereagainst by the non-applicant has been allowed and the order dated 12.02.2004 has been set aside by the learned appellate Court vide judgement dated 20.02.2009.

3. Assailing the judgement dated 20.02.2009, learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 17(1A) of the Act 1936, would submit that since the appeal preferred by the non-applicant did not accompany a certificate by the authority evidencing deposition of the amount payable under the order dated 12.02.2004, it was incompetent and was not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the judgement dated 20.02.2009 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by the authority be restored. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Executive Engineer UPSEB v. Prescribed Authority & Ors.: 2002 (93) FLR 913.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant would submit that the learned appellate Court did not err in entertaining the appeal inasmuch as he has filed the requisite certificate of deposition albeit with some delay. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. Section 17(1A) of the Act of 1936 reads as under:-

"[(1A) No appeal under clause (a) of subsection (1)] shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against.]"

7. A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Mohammed & Sans v. Authority: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.746/1980, while interpreting the aforesaid provision, held as under:-

"7. It is true that where ever the alternative remedy is too onerous then the courts have taken a lenient view of the matter and entertained petitions directly. But Section 17(1)(A) of the Act was inserted by way of amendment in 1965 for the purposes of advancing the social cause that the employee should be assured of the sum before he can be driven to further litigation. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom had made it a paramount condition so that the poor workman may not be made to suffer on account of litigation driven by the management. This is a statutory provisions which advanced the social justice and is consistent with the preamble of the Constitution. Thus, no exception can be taken and in number of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that the Memoran