STATE OF U P Vs. SATYAPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR writ petitions have been filed by the State of U. P. 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 U. P. is that the District Judge has unsuited the State of U. P. as an appellant for the simple reason that prior to filing an appeal under section 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 under section 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.) WHEN It came to consider the appeals of the State of U.P., the learned District Judge, Meerut. in each of his four orders, placed on record, in effect, that it was admitted by counsel for State of U.P. that unless the memoranda of appeal under section 17 la accompanied by a certificate of deposit of claim so awarded, a requirement under sub-section (1-A), the appeal would not be maintainable. The District Judge has also placed on record that the State of U. P. applied for extension of the time to make the deposit and file the certificate, but, it has not done so. Thus, as the State of U. P. took time to bring and file the certificate of deposit, reference section 17 (1-A), but, did not do so, the appeal was dismissed, by the District Judge, was not being maintainable.