1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

SB Civil Writ Petition No.885/2014

Sahukar Singh versus Cimmco Limited, Bharatpur & ors

25.2.2014

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

Mr JP Sharma - for petitioner(s)

Mr GK Garg, Sr Adv with Mrs Anita Agarwal – for respondents

BY THE COURT:

With consent of the parties, writ petition is heard

finally.

By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the

order dated 25.11.2013 passed on the stay application to the

appeal filed under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after the

order of the Payment of Wages Authority, an appeal can be

maintained if it is accompanied by a certificate for payment of the

amount directed by the Payment of Wages Authority. The

respondents preferred an appeal without accompanying the

2

certificate thus appeal should have been dismissed by the court

but, instead of doing so, an interim order has been passed vide

order dated 25.11.2013 thus it may be set aside.

Learned counsel for respondent submits that the case

has a checkered history inasmuch as after the order of the Payment

of Wages Authority, another order was passed by the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate imposing penalty of Rs.2,03,000/- under

section 20(6) of the Act of 1936. The respondent company

preferred a writ petition against the order of the Payment of Wages

Authority wherein interim order was passed on the penalty amount

subject to payment of principal amount. Pursuant to the stay order,

an amount of Rs.1,90,178/- was deposited by the respondent

company, however, writ petition was then dismissed to avail

alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act of 1936.

The respondent company immediately preferred an appeal and

prayed for interim order because petitioner was pursuing for

recovery by attachment. The appellate court passed a reasoned

order which is impugned herein. The application before the

Payment of Wages Authority was not even maintainable for

execution of the award passed by the labour court hence,

impugned order may not be interfered. It is alternatively prayed

that even if the appeal is maintainable on deposition of the entire

3

amount directed by the Payment of Wages Authority, the

respondent company be given liberty to deposit it.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel

for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that on an application moved by

the petitioner, the Payment of Wages Authority passed an order

quantifying the benefits at the sum of Rs.3,80,356/-. The order

aforesaid was passed on 18.11.2006. It was challenged by filing

writ petition where interim order was also passed. In the

meanwhile, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bharatpur passed a separate order causing penalty of

Rs.2,03,000/-. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the

respondent company to avail remedy of appeal under section 17 of

the Act of 1936 which has been availed by the respondent

company. The question of maintainability has not been addressed

before passing impugned order. A reference of section 17 (1) of

the Act of 1936 is relevant for the aforesaid purpose which is

quoted hereunder -

“17. Appeal.- (1) [An appeal against an

order dismissing either wholly or in part an

application made under sub-section (2) of

section 15, or against a direction made

4

under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of

that section] may be preferred, within thirty

days of the date on which [the order or

direction] was made, in a Presidency-town

5*** before the Court of Small Causes and

elsewhere before the District Court--

(a) by the employer or other person

responsible for the payment of wages under

section 3, if the total sum directed to be

paid by way of wages and compensation

exceeds three hundred rupees [or