The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides a complete code in itself and does not admit of the application of any of the provisions of the Limitation Act mentioned in Section 29(2) of that Act. An appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act must be filed within 30 days of the date of the order or direction, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be used to extend this period.

S. H. A. RAZA, J.

( 1 ) VIJAI Kumar Bhalla, the workman, preferred six applications purporting to be given under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming his wages for different periods against the co-operative Bank, Bahraich, before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The wages for different periods were allowed by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed authority issued a direction that a sum of Rs. 6. 314. 76 be paid to the petitioner by the Bahraich district Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Bahraich as wages of the employee and the equal amount of wages to the tune of Rs. 6,314. 76 be paid as penalty. A sum of Rs. 7. 50 as court fee and a sum of rs. 150 as cost of the cases, meaning thereby that a total sum of Rs. 12,787. 02 was payable under the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority.

( 2 ) THE employer Bahraich District Co-operative Bank Limited, Bahraich preferred a time-barred appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act along with an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The District Judge, Bahraich by means of the order dated 26. 3. 1983 allowed the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and condoned the delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The District Judge. Bahraich further directed that let this appeal be listed and a date be fixed for the hearing of the appeal and notice about that date be issued to both the parties.

( 3 ) THE workman being aggrieved against the said order preferred this writ petition on 18. 8. 1983 before this Court. This Court on 19. 8. 1983 directed the Issuance of the notice to the respondents and ordered that "meanwhile the final disposal of the appeal shall remain stayed. The learned district Judge is not debarred from dealing with any miscellaneous application that may be filed or that may be pending in his Court. " Shri K. S. Bajpal has put in appearance on behalf of the said Bank.

( 4 ) THE main thrust of the learned counsel of the petitioner in this writ petition is two-fold : firstly that there existed no provision in the Payment of the Wages Act. 1936 for the application of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Act provided the limitation of 30 days for filing of appeal. Hence the Court below committed a manifest error of law in entertaining the appeal which was barred by time, secondly : that no appeal under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 17 would 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. But as only 6. 472. 76 was deposited that too beyond 30 days Instead of 12,787. 02. the appeal was not maintainable and deserves to be rejected.

( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed. It was stated in the counter-affidavit that the decretal amount was deposited within a period of one month from the date of knowledge and as such the objection was of no avail to deposit Rs. 12. 187. 02 paise. The mandatory requirement according to the opposite parties was thus complied with. It was also asserted in the counter-affidavit that the Limitation Act fully applied to the proceedings and the delay deserves to be condoned under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was also submitted that no objection was ever taken by the petitioner against the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Indian limitation Act.

( 6 ) THE learned District Judge, Bahraich in his order dated 26. 3. 1983, which has been assailed in this writ petition has laid emphasis over the fact that the Bank has not received any information of the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30th June. 1982 at any time prior to 30. 9. 1982, and in that regard cited several authorities to arrive at a conclusion that the starting point of limitation was to be taken From the date of communication of the order. According to the District Ju