[2025:RJ-JP:36140]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11922/2011

1. Head Master, Government Secondary School, Bhoori Pahadi, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

2. District Education Officer, Secondary, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Isar Dayal Son Of Tulsi Ram Rao, Bhoori Pahari, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur.

2. District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

3. The Payment Of Wages Authority, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pooja Sharma with Mr. Manik Kaswan on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

08/09/2025

1. Petitioners have assailed validity and propriety of order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the District Judge, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan in the capacity of Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, 'the Act of 1936'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.08.2003 passed by the Competent Authority under the Act of 1936 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by not condoning the delay occurred in filing appeal and while doing so learned Appellate Court has utterly failed to consider that the delay in preferring the appeal took place only on account of procedural reasons, as there was mandatory requirement to deposit the amount awarded by the Competent Authority before preferring an appeal. Although the petitioners deposited the amount, yet delay has occurred in getting the sanction from the higher authorities, and for such bonafide reasons, the appeal could not be preferred within a period of one month.

3. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.

4. Section 17 of the Act of 1936 prescribes limitation of 30 days for filing appeal against the order of Competent Authority and Section 17(1-A) makes it apparently clear that no appeal shall lie unless memorandum of appeal is accompanied by certificate of deposit.

5. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that limitation of 30 days is given for filing of appeal besides time in obtaining certified copy of the order appealed against and no appeal shall lie unless memorandum of appeal is accompanied by certificate of deposit and as such the deposit of the amount awarded by the Competent Authority was also required to be made within limitation.

6. In the instant case, order was passed by the Competent Authority on 30.08.2003, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.80,666/-, which were deposited by the petitioners on 20.01.2004 i.e., after lapse of more than four and half months and thereafter filed appeal on 24.01.2004.

7. I have also examined the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners along with memo of appeal, however, no convincing reasons so as to substantiate good and sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay have come out from bare perusal of the contents of the application.

8. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or error in order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Court below. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

9. All pending application(s), also stand disposed of.

(ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/114