EXECUTIVE ENGINEER A P STATE IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed for issuance of an appropriate order, writ or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to orders, dated 15-11-1995, in Case No.E/80/95 and in P.W. Case No.6/93 on the file of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Labour Officer, Sanga Reddy.

(2.) The impugned orders were made by the Primary Authority while exercising powers under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, hereinafter referred to in short as 'Act' for brevity. It is suffice to state that in both the matters, though different proceedings are questioned, the parties are the same and the claims relate to different periods. The facts, which may be essential for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, in brief, can be narrated as follows: The contesting parties in these writ; petitions, respondent Nos 2 to 18, had invoked the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act claiming the relief of deduction of wages and the delay in payment of wages. No doubt, there is some controversy relating to whether the claims made by these parties, in fact, fall within the parameters of Section 15 of the Act. The Authority under the Act had condoned the delay in filing the application and also had proceeded to decide the matter on merits. Aggrieved by the said orders, which are, in fact, the impugned orders in both these writ petitions, appeals had been preferred on the file of District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy in S.R.Nos.211 and 212 of 1996 and the petition filed for dispensing with the certificate was dismissed and the Memorandum of Appeal had been returned for want of complying of the provisions of Section 17 (1) (a) of the said Act and the said orders were questioned by way of C.R.P. No.4995/2001 and C.R.P. (SR) No.62301/96. It is brought to my notice that one C.R.P. was dismissed as withdrawn and the other C.R.P. was not further prosecuted. Inasmuch as, even at the stage of deciding an application for condonation of delay, further opportunity was not given and since the impugned orders were made without authority or jurisdiction, questioning the said orders, the present writ petitions are filed.

(3.) The other factual details narrating the total historical background of the case may not be essential for the purpose of disposal of both these writ petitions.