The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash an order under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, based on manifest error and misreading of evidence, and the maintainability of a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

( 1 ) SHRI Rakesh Bahadur learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Awasthi learned standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 are present. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 1, the main contesting party though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and a rejoinder affidavit in rebuttal filed by the petitioner is on record.

( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated June 15, 1993 passed by respondent No. 2 allowing the application of respondent No. 1 moved under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)claiming therein the arrears of salary for the period January 4, 1990 to March 31, 1991 amounting to Rs. 14,456/- along with the said application, an application for condonation of delay had also been filed without any affidavit in support of the same. A written statement was filed on behalf of (sic) the petitioner objecting to the claim of respondent No. 1 and for condonation of delay. The respondent No. 1 had claimed that he had been appointed as Naib moharrir by the then President of the Municipal board, Ramnagar, vide its order dated October 3, 1989 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition)without having any jurisdiction to pass such appointment though no such post exists. However, vide its order dated October 19, 1989 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), president of the Board granted approval of the services of the petitioner on the application of respondent No. 1 itself for a period of two months only, a copy of which was duly served on the respondent No. 1 who appended his note on the said order that he had been made aware of the same.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated June 15, 1993 allowed the claim of the respondent No. 2 holding therein that he had been wrongly and illegally not paid his wages with effect from january 4, 1990 to March 31, 1991 to which he was entitled to and directed the petitioner to release the payment of the same.

( 4 ) THE petitioner did not file any appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Court of small Causes in the District Court and filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India directly challenging the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 15 (2) of the Act on the ground that the said impugned order dated june 15, 1993 was wholly perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction on account of the fact that it had completely misread the statements of daroga Singh witness of the petitioner while recording a finding that the averment of respondent No. 1 that he had regularly worked since January 2, 1990 had not controverted. Moreso, the President of the Nagar Palika was not the appointing authority under law and as such the appointment itself was wholly void and illegal and there did not exist any such post on which the respondent No. 1 could have been appointed. In any view of the matter since, the respondent No. 1 had not worked after January 2, 1990 and he was aware of the resolution of the even date, he had not moved any application for payment of his wages before the petitioner.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the Municipal Board vide its resolution dated January 2, 1990 directed the cancellation of all such appointments made by the President including that of the respondent no. 1 being illegal, and that he had no right to continue to work after January 2, 1990 in view of the fact that the appointment was for a fixed term of two months only and as such after the expiry of two months period his services were not required to be formally terminated nor did he challenge the same before any competent forum, rather, he had filed an application under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming his wages with effect from January 4, 1990 to March 31, 1991. Written statements were filed on behalf of (sic) the parties and evidence