SANDEEP HARESHBHAI AGRAWAL Vs. ALLAUDIN JAMALUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the order dated 24-5-2000 of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is under challenge. Various grounds of challenge to the impugned order are enumerated in the petition.

(2.) Shri DJ Bhatt appears for the respondent no.1 and he raises a preliminary objection that the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of provision for appeal contained under sec.17 of the Payment of Wages Act. His objection is that, since there is a statutory provision for appeal against the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the petitioner should have availed of that alternative remedy which is efficacious, and since the alternative statutory remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner, this Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 or under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri RV Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that, in appropriate cases jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court under Art.226 as well as under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Few cases were cited by Shri Desai in support of his contention. A judgment of the Supreme Court was cited by Shri DJ Bhatt in support of his preliminary objection and another pronouncement of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court was also cited by him. There can be no dispute that the impugned order under challenge was passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act on an application under sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Sec.17 of the Act provides for a remedy of appeal. Sec.17(1) provides that, an appeal against the order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-sec(2) of sec.15 or against the direction made under sub-sec(3) of sec.4 of that section may be preferred within 30 days of the date on which the order or direction was made in presidency town before the Court of Small Cause and else where before the District Court. There is no dispute regarding existence of alternative remedy for filing appeal. However, Shri Desai has referred to several decisions in support of his contention that, it is a fit case where jurisdiction should be exercised under Art.226 as well as under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties are being discussed as under :