The jurisdiction of the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is limited to illegal deductions and delay in payment of wages, and does not extend to determining 'potential wages'. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition if the authority acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

( 1 ) LIST is revised. Learned counsel for the parties appearing in Writ Petition No. 15796 of 1998 are present. In the connected Writ petition No. 14638 of 1996, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is present but the learned counsel for the respondents who was heard earlier on january 5, 2006 and a date was fixed January 17, 2006 as the next date of hearing, did not care to appear on both the calls.

( 2 ) AS the controversy involved in the Writ petition No. 15796 of 1998 and the Writ petition No. 14638 of 1996 being identical and the both the writ petitions are connected by the order dated May 21, 1998, the same are being heard and decided together by common order by taking the Writ Petition No. 15796 of 1998 leading case. The present proceedings arise out of an order dated April 3, 1998 passed by an authority under the Payment of Wages Act on an application made by the respondent No. 2, labour Enforcement Officer, Varanasi under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming that 44 workmen who were engaged by the petitioner through a contractor in the bonded warehouse were being subjected to illegal deduction of wages because the petitioner was not paying to these 44 workmen minimum wages which ought to have been paid in pursuance of notification dated August 13, 1991 under the Payment of Wages Act.

( 3 ) THE claim raised by the workman was that illegal deductions had been made from the period March, 1995 to February, 1996. The authority concerned has therefore directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,13,977. 28 as wages and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,27,954. 56 along with costs for a sum of Rs. 250/ -.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner has a bonded warehouse situated at chauka Ghat, Varanasi, which was allotted to the petitioner on April 1, 1994 for the period commencing w. e. f. April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995 and later on re allotted to the petitioner in the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The bonded warehouse allotted to the petitioner was under the control of the Excise Department of the state of U. P. The activities being carried in the bonded warehouse were that the alcohol which is produced in the factory of the petitioner was brought to the bonded warehouse and diluted with water so that it becomes fit for human consumption. Without adding of the water, it was not fit for human consumption. After being diluted with water, the alcohol was packed in pouches and the same were to be distributed for sale and use under the control and supervision of Excise Department.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued firstly that the bonded warehouse cannot be deemed to be covered under the said act because it is not covered under the provisions of Section 1 (4) of the Payment of wages Act, 1936, which is quoted hereinbelow:" (4) It applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory, to persons employed otherwise than in a factory upon any railway by a railway administration or, either directly or though a sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling, a contract with a railway administration, and to persons employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of Section 2. "

( 6 ) THE next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Section 15 of the Act is misconceived and not maintainable. Because the Section 15 of the act contemplates only claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is limited and summary in nature and is confined to claims which arise out of illegal deductions and delay in the pay