The requirement of a certificate of deposit of the claim awarded under Section 17(1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is mandatory for all employers, including the State, and cannot be waived by the court.

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.

Four writ petitions have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through Prabhagiya Nideshak, Samajik Vaniki Prabhag, Meerut, i.e. the Department of Social Forestry, challenging certain proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

2. In short, what aggrieves the State of Uttar Pradesh is that the District Judge has unsuited the State of Uttar Pradesh as an appellant for the simple reason that prior to filing an appeal u/s 17, the condition precedent is that under Sub-section 1-A of Section 17 of the Act, aforesaid, the memoranda of appeal must be accompanied by a certificate on the claim which has been awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority u/s 15. The contention in the writ petitions is that the case itself is devoid of merits and the claims cannot be awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority and the stipulation that the appeal must be accompanied by a certificate of deposit of the amount on the claim as awarded, is an onerous condition and, thus, in effect, a writ is desired from this Court for a waiver of the claim prior to consideration of the appeal.

3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is afraid that the Court cannot make different standards between employers whether they are industrialists or the State of Uttar Pradesh or the Union of India. No two sets of law operate for one class of citizens and another for the State. Both will be judged by the same standard and if the requirement of the law is laid down for an employer, even if it is the State, the employer will be bound by the contents of law. The State of Uttar Pradesh is, thus no exception.

4. As the four writ petitions of the State of Uttar Pradesh paise common issues, they are being taken up for consideration by the Court by this order on all of them One set of orders is dated 26 July, 1993 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority is case No. 211 of 1990 and 212 of 1990 (Annexure 4 to each of the respective writ petitions). In one writ petition, the workman concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Tara Chand and in the other writ petition, the workmen concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Gyan Singh. In the other two writ petitions, the order impugned are dated 17 November, 1993. This order of the Payment of Wages Authority (also Annexure 4 to the respective writ petitions), though the orders are separate, have been passed in Case No. 33 of 1993 and Case No. 34 of 1993 In the writ petitions which impugn the proceedings, the workmen concerned are Krishna Pal s/o Dhruv Singh and Messrs Bal Kishore and Sunil Kumar, parentage of the first is not given, and the second as s/o Rajpal.

5. Whatever be the worth of the claim, the Payment of Wages Authority by orders dated 26 July, 1993 and 17 November 1993 allowed wages as were due to the workmen and, in addition, also awarded compensation as penalty. On each of the claim petition, the amount as awarded to each of the workman, being the wages due, the compensation and the gross amount which was awarded to the workman concerned, is reproduced in the table below:

Case No.	Filed by	Amount Awarded	Compensation	Total amount
211/90	Satyapal Singh s/o Tara Chand	Rs. 56425/-	Three times of Rs. 56425/-	Rs. 2,25,700/-
212/90	Satyapal Singh s/o Gyan Singh	Rs. 56425/-	Three times of Rs. 56425/-	Rs. 2,25,700/-
33/93	Krishnapal Singh	Rs. 69914.66	Rs. 349574.40	Rs. 4,19,489.28
34/92	Bal Kishore	Rs. 15947.61	Rs. 79738.05	Rs. 95685.66
34/93	Sunil Kumar	Rs. 66047.32	Rs. 330236.60	Rs. 396283.92

6. Against each of the orders, aforesaid, against which a respective petition has been filed, being the set of orders dated 26 July, 1993 and 17 November, 1993, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed appeals before the District Judge, Meerut, being Misc. Appeals No. 262/93, 263/93, 25/93 and 24/93. At the time when the memoranda of appeal wa