1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2977/2007 Harish Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge (Fast Track ) No.2 Pali & Ors Date of Order :: 12.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr.S.P.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.D.N.Yadav, for the respondent. ... By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the order dated 01.05.2007, passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner-defendant as per the provisions of the Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, no court is required to entertain any suit for the recovery of the wages or any detention from the wages. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is having application to the persons employed in any factory or to the persons employed otherwise then in the factory upon any railway, by a railway administration or, either directly or through sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with the Railway Administration and to the person employed in any industrial establishment specified in 2 sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a factory nor a railway establishment. It is also not an industrial establishment or the establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act of 1936. Bar provided under Section 22 of the Act of 1936, thus, is having no application in present controversy. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff- respondent is claiming for recovery of money on basis of a pro- note. I do not find any error with the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. s.soni