Maintainability of writ of certiorari.

This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras.

The respondents, S.P. Nataraja Sastrigal and S. Padmanabha Rao, were Assistant Masters in the South Indian Railway, each in charge of Northern area school and Eastern area school respectively, of the Golden Rock colony. They were allowed to draw a duty allowance of Rs. 2 each per mensem. The appointments were made on 5th July, 1941. Subsequently their designation was changed to that of head masters. In the year 1950, the Central Pay Commission sanctioned a revised scale of pay and allowance to the head masters which was to be given retrospective effect from January, 1947. In implementation of the above, the duty allowance of the head masters was raised to Rs. 15 per month. After the revision of the scales of pay C.S. Krishnamurthy Aiyar and M.G. Venkatarama Aiyar in whose places the respondents were appointed, were posted as head masters of the said two elementary schools. The respondents were reverted to their posts as. assistant masters and posted to work in the High Schools and Elementary Schools respectively. As they were reverted to their original posts they were ordered not to draw the special pay of Rs. 15 per mensem. Pursuant to that order, their wages were reduced by Rs. 15 per mensem. There was also a proportionate deductioa in their dearness allowance by another sum of Rs. 5. They applied by a group application under section 15(2) and section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for payment of their delayed wages and also for compensation. They estimated their relief in a sum of Rs. 310-10-8. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s. Compensation allowed their claims. The Union of India has filed the present application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash that order of the Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, had no jurisdiction to question the validity of any reversion or transfer made by the administration of any of their employees but that his jurisdiction was confined to direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, within the prescribed limit only on the basis of his existing appointment. But learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection and contends that the writ would not issue as the petitioners have an effective remedy by way of an appeal to the Court of Small Causes against the order of the Commissioner and that they had not preferred the same.

To appreciate the preliminary objection, the following two relevant provisions of the Act may be read:-

"Section 16(1). Employed persons are said to belong to the same unpaid group if they are borne on the same establishment and if their wages for the same wage-period or periods have remained unpaid after the day fixed by section 5.

(2) A single application may be presented under section 15 on behalf of or in respect of any number of employed persons belonging to the same unpaid group, and in such case the maximum compensation that may be awarded under sub-section (3) of section 15 shall be ten rupees per head.

(3) The authority may deal with any number of separate pending applications, presented under section 15 in respect of persons belonging to the same unpaid group, as a single application presented under sub-section (2) of this section, and the provisions of that sub-section shall apply accordingly.

" Section 17(1). An appeal against a direction made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 15 may be preferred, within thirty days of the date on which the direction was made, in a Presidency-town, before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court-

(a) by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3, if th