GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRADHIKARI VETAN SANDYE ADHINIYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 5th/8th May, 1987, passed by the Prescribed Authority Ghaziabad, the respondent no. 1,

(2.) THE respondent no. 2, Lekhnath Jha, preferred a claim petition under the Payment of Wages Act. Two objections of the preliminary nature were raised before the Prescribed Authority by and on behalf of the petitioner. THE first was that the petition was barred by time. THE Authority has held that the petition has been filed within time. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Prescribed Authority holding that the petition had been filed within time at this stage. In fact so far as this poiet is concerned, the writ petition is in substance against an interlocutory order. It is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to question the legality and properiety of the order of the Prescribed Authority on the question of limitation, if and when an order is passed against the petitioner and if the petitioner is advised to question the legality of the order of the Prescribed Authority on merits.

(3.) A combined reading of the provisions as contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 indicates that the suit referred to in both the sub-sections should be instituted before a court stricto-sense. It is also clear that such court should be subordinate to the High Court.