1. Admitted on 09.05.2002, this petition impugns the award dated 14.07.2001 passed by authority appointed under Payment of Wages Act in favour of respondents 3 to 22 to the tune of Rs. 1,21,735/- on account of unpaid wages due to them in lieu of services rendered by them to the petitioner-department. Grounds pleaded are that the claim of respondents aforesaid was a total fraud as they had received whatever wages were due to them, through respondent no. 3 who engaged other respondent to execute the work of construction of house hold Latrines under allotment order No. 927-34/RSP/95-96 dated 05.01.1996 under a special scheme of Border Area Development Programme (BADP) which was undertaken during years 1994-95, and 1995-96 in Block Uri for Village Nambla and as such, claim projected before the authority was bad which was wrongly allowed particularly because respondents 4 to 22 were never engaged by petitioner-department but respondent no. 3 who had been paid all the wages by the department for construction of forty-four Latrines under the aforesaid scheme, but despite that chose to institute the time bar claim which was entertained by the authority beyond period of limitation even without notice to petitioners.

2. In their reply respondents 3 to 22 while objecting to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that petitioners had not exhausted the appellate remedy available to them under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act without which petition could not be filed, they have also pleaded that their claim before the appointed authority below was well founded and fully justified in fact and law. During course of submission, counsel appearing for 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document