The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to an Appeal filed under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, and the Appeal must be accompanied by a certificate confirming the deposit of the amount payable under the direction appealed against.

This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 14th August, 2012 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by which the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal has been rejected.

2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that respondent no.3-Sugriva filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Prescribed Authority with the allegation that he was entitled to earned wages from the petitioner from 1st April, 2005 to 31st August, 2008. This application was registered by the Prescribed Authority as P.W. Case No.1 of 2008. An order dated 28th May, 2008 was passed by the Prescribed Authority for closing the evidence of the petitioner since despite opportunities granted to the petitioner evidence was not led and 30th May, 2008 was fixed for arguments. The Prescribed Authority then, by the order dated 30th May, 2008, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.41,228/- to respondent no.3-Sugriva towards wages and Rs.82,456/- towards compensation.

3. This order dated 28th May, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.31880 of 2008. Initially, an interim order was passed by the Court on 8th July, 2008 but after exchange of affidavits the writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 18th October, 2011 on the ground that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 17 of the Act.

4. The petitioner subsequently filed an Appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Appellate Authority on 10th November, 2011 and with the Appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal. An application was also filed for grant of stay of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

5. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.1081 of 2012 for a direction upon the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal filed by the petitioner. This petition was disposed of on 20th June, 2012 with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the delay condonation application and the stay application on the next fixed i.e. 21st July, 2012.

6. When the Appeal came up for consideration before the Appellate Authority, an objection was raised by the respondent in the Appeal that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not available to the appellant in the Appeal filed under Section 17 of the Act. It was also asserted by the respondent that even otherwise, the Appeal was not maintainable as the memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant had deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. These two objections were upheld by the Appellate Authority and, accordingly, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the stay application were rejected by the order dated 14th August, 2012. It is this order dated 14th August, 2012 that has been assailed in the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Authority should have condoned the delay in filing the Appeal and it is only after the delay was condoned that the petitioner would have satisfied the condition of deposit of the amount. He, therefore, submits that the order should be set aside.

8. Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3-Sugriva, however, submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply when the Appeal is filed under Section 17 of the Act and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Hind Majdoor Sabha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1999 (81) FLR 216. It is also his submission that even otherwise, as the memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the a