MOHD NASIR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE RAJOURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions involve common question of law and fact because what arises for consideration is, whether in the absence of compliance of Section 17(1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act, an appeal could be entertained under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17(1-A) reads as under:

(2.) Mr. Salaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appellate Court having held Section 17(1-A) mandatory, the judgment impugned is erroneous because the appeal had been dismissed. Ms. Seema Shekhar, GA objected to the maintainability of the petitions under Article 226 read with Section 103 of the State Constitution. According to her, the Court cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction while exercising powers of judicial review.

(3.) Since no second appeal is provided, the only remedy available to the petitioner is under the Constitution. In Achutananda Baidya Prafullya Kumar Gayen, AIR 1997 SC 2077 : 1997 (5) SCC 76, their Lordships held that: