GEORGE PETER C Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal seeks to vary the decision by a learned Judge of this Court, whereby he had rejected the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts culminating in the appeal to this Court can be briefly stated.

(2.) 62 Workers of the appellant's factory, called Messrs. C. George Peter Coir Factory, Alleppey, filed an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, IV of 1936, averring that they were entitled to leave with wages, balance bonus, lay off compensation, notice pay, and retrenchment compensation, on the ground of closure of the factory, which was not bona fide. The claim was filed under S.15 of the Act, which authorises determination of the question whether the payment of wages has been wrongly withheld. The Authority on June 6, 1959, allowed the application, holding the appellant liable on account of the aforesaid claims to pay Rs. 21,474-2-6. It is common ground that under S.17 of the Payment of Wages Act, an appeal lies to the District Court, but the appellant did not avail of the right to appeal, and instead filed the writ petition in this Court on March 5, 1959. The petition was filed in this Court after the period of appeal had expired; and the learned Judge, after notice to the representative of the 62 workers and the Authority, who had made the order, declined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground that the failure to appeal precludes the appellant's claiming the discretionary relief under Article 226.

(3.) The appellant's learned advocate has urged that the learned Judge has erred in declining to exercise his powers and in holding the case not to be fit, in which a writ of certiorari could be issued. Now the proposition of law is well settled that failure to avail oneself of the statutory right of appeal is not always fatal to the writ of certiorari being issued. The circumstances under which the failure would not be treated as precluding a party from asking the writ, have been stated by the Supreme Court in U. P. State v. Mohd. Nooh ( AIR 1958 SC 86 at 94) to be as follows :