1. Admitted on 11.12.2000, this petition seeks quashment of award passed by authority appointed under Payment of Wages Act on 15.02.2000 in respondents favour to the tune of Rs. 30,100/- on account of unpaid wages due to her in lieu of services rendered to petitioner-department. Grounds pleaded are that since the wages claimed by respondent were time bar, the authority below had no jurisdiction to maintain the claim particularly because respondents engagement with petitioner-department was not valid nor she had rendered any service.

2. In her reply the respondents while objecting to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that petitioners had not availed of the appellate remedy available to him under Payment of Wages Act, has also pleaded that the authority below had only directed payment of wages in her favour for services rendered and as such, the impugned award was well placed in fact and law. During course of submissions, counsel appearing for the parties have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings.

3. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. The first question that falls for consideration is whether in view of the alternate appellate remedy available to petitioners under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, the writ petition could be maintained without exhausting the same and if so in what circumstances. In this behalf reference may be made to the precedent to find an answer to the question:

I. In "M.G. Abrol vs. M/s Shanti Lal and Company" reported as AIR 1996 SC 197- Honble Apex Court while considering the question was pleased to hold in Para 15 of judgement among other things as under :- "Lastly it was argued that the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as the respondents had an effective remedy by way of appeal............ but the High Court rightly pointed out that respondents had no effective remedy for they could not file an appeal without depositing the huge amount........ as a condition precedent imposed on them that apart........... The existence of effective remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court but it is only one of the circumstances that the court should take into consideration in exercising it discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this case, the High Court thought fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and we do not see any exceptional circumstance to interfere its discretion".

II. The question was also considered by Division Bench of this Court in "Tramboo Joinery Private Limited vs. Authority under Payment of Wages Act" reported as 1998 S.L.J. Page 79 wherein while considering the question the bench observed as under:- "Dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant had approached the writ court without exhausting efficacious remedy of appeal and the writ petition has rightly been dismissed, the writ court while recording such finding for dismissal of the petition has placed reliance upon the judgements of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969-556 and AIR 1985 p.330. We have pursued the judgements. The Honble Supreme Court has laid down law in AIR 1969 p.556 while dealing with a particular situation holding that the writ court should refuse to entertain the application where efficacious alternative remedy is available. In AIR 1985 S.C. 330, it is observed that where the Court is convinced that there are good and sufficient reasons to by pass the alternative remedy provided by the Statute, the extra ordinary jurisdiction can be invoked and exercised. In the present case, the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is without jurisdiction and in case the matter is remanded back for exhausting the remedy available, it will be of no use and will serve no purpose and will only aggravate the agony of the parties to receive the verdict of the appellate Authority provided by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document