1. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order, dated It October 1991, passed in the Civil Revision No. 3 of 1990 by the Second Additional District Judge, Aligarh. Respondent 3 was appointed as a salesman in Chhetriya Sakhari Samiti, Ltd., Ruher, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the samiti), on temporary basis. It is stated that he committed embezzlement and was negligent in performance of his duties. He used to absent himself from duties. Therefore, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the petitioner. Respondent 3 filed a petition under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act thereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner and Act, district Aligarh (sic) claiming wages due from the petitioners. The petitioners filed a written statement and contested the case under S. 15 of the Act, on the ground that claim of respondent 3 was highly time-barred and the claim of the petitioner was not maintainable before the Prescribed Authority under the Act. It was also stated that the claim of the petitioner under S. 15 of the Act was barred by S. 24 of the Minimum Wages Act.
2. The petitioner submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority under the Act for deciding as a preliminary issue that the claim of the opposite party was barred by limitation as well, as the application under S. 15 of the Act was not maintainable.
3. The Prescribed Authority by order, dated 22 December 1989, decided the preliminary objection. It was stated by the opposite party that the employer have illegally not paid the wages amounting to Rs. 11,732 for the period from April 1988, to September 1988. Tentimes damages was also clamed on the amount unpaid. The Prescribed Authority was pleased to condone the delay in filing the application under S. 15 of the Act and the objections of the petitioner raised and sought to be decided as preliminary issue were negatived. It was directed that the petitioner may file their written statement and evidence in the proceedings. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority filed a civil revision before the District Judge, Aligarh, on the ground that the order passed in the proceedings wider S. 15 of the Act could be appealed under S. 17 of the Act. Since the appeal was main-tamable, the civil revision filed was held to be not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order of the learned revisional Court is patently illegal. He submitted that the order passed was not a final order and no appeal lay against such an order. It was submitted that it was an interlocutory order and the order condoning the delay in filing of the application under S. 15 of the Act was also patently illegal. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the civil revision filed before the lower revisional Court was illegally rejected and the order rejecting the civil revision is liable to be quashed.
5. The first question for consideration is whether the order of the lower revisional Court dismissing the: revision on the ground that the appeal was maintainable is to be adjudged. A perusal of S. 15 of the Act shows that the Prescribed Authority is to hear and decide according to law disputes relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes enforced in the State arising out of deduction of wages, or delay in payment of wages of persons employed or paid in that area including all matters incidental to such claim. The provision of S. 15(3) of the Act also confers jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing of the application for payment of wages, delayed or illegal withdrawal or deducted as the case may be. In the present ease, provisions of S. 15 fully apply to the case of the opposite party. The allegations as made in the application brings the case within the four corners of provisions of S. 15 of the Act. It is also within the domain and jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to condone the delay in filing of the application for payment of wages on his bring satisfied that there existed reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. The discretion of course has to be exercised judicially after hearing the parties to the lis.
6. In the present case, the opposite parties claimed under S. 15 which was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds of delay and jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority in adjudicating the matter before him. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and giving the due opportunities to them at the request of the petitioner decided to condone the delay in filing the application under S. 15. There was no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the application under S. 15 of the Act as admittedly the respondent was employed at the concern of the petitioner and comes within the purview of the workmen. There was no error in entertaining the application under S. 15 of the Act and condoning the delay.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it was an interlocutory order and no appeal could be entertained under S. 17 of the Act. The provisions of S. 17 of the Act are quoted as under:
“17. Appeal.—(1) An appeal against, an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under Sub-sec. (2) of S. 15, or a direction made under Sub-sec. (3) or Sub-sec. (4) of that section may be preferred within 30 days of the date on which (the order or direction) was made, in a pesidency town before the Court of Small, Causes and elsewhere before the District Court.”
The provisions of S. 15(2) are quoted as under:
“Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed persons, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself or any legal petitioner/or any official or a registered trade union authorised in writing to act, on his behalf, or any inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-sec. (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-sec. (3):
Provided that, every such application shall be presented within 12 months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made of from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made as the case may be:
Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (12 months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”
8. The above provision clearly shows that the Prescribed Authority has the discretion of condoning the delay if a petition is filed beyond 12 months as provided in the section. It is evident from the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had raised the plea of bar of limitation. The said plea of the petitioner was negatived by the Prescribed Authority and it was held that the delay was Jo be condoned for the reasons stated in the order. Thus, the order of the Prescribed Authority is fully covered within the provisions of S. 15(2), proviso, and as such an order is appealable under S. 17 of the Act. The petitioner himself had requested the Prescribed Authority to decide the question as a preliminary issue which has been decided. Merely because the order was passed as a preliminary issue, that would not bring the case outside the purview of S. 15(2) of the Act. The section itself is clear and there is no ambiguity to that aspect. It appears that the petitioner was wrongly advised to file the revision before the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority who was rightly rejected by the Additional District Judge.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am not satisfied that the present petition calls for any interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, it is observed that the Prescribed Authority may decide the petition under S. 15 pending before him at an early date, preferably within 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment and order before him.
10. In the result, the petition is dismissed summarily.