IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20064 of 2008. Date of Decision : May 25, 2009. M/s Haryana Steel and Alloys Limited, 48th K.M. G.T. Road, P.O. Engineering College, Murthal, Sonepat, Haryana, through its Deputy Manager, Mr. Prem Bansal. ....... Petitioner. Versus. State of Haryana, through Labour Secretary, Sector-17, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the respondent No. 4. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide which the appeal has been held to be not maintainable and accordingly dismissed on the ground that the provisions contained under Section 17(1-A) of the Act which mandates pre-deposit for entertainment of the appeal has not been complied with. Counsel for the petitioner states that he has preferred an application for exemption from making pre-deposit for entertainment of the appeal as mandated under Section 17 (1-A) of the Act was filed. The grouse of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that no decision on the said application has been rendered by the Appellate Court and the Court has proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner, holding it to be not maintainable in the light of Section 17(1-A) of the Act. He contends that the said application was required to be heard and decided by the C.W.P. No. 20064 of 2008. Court before proceeding to decide the appeal itself. No orders have been passed in the said application while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. There is no provision under the Payment of Wages Act for making such application as the Court does not have any authority to waive the payment of pre-deposit as mandated under Section 17(1-A) of the Act. The said application therefore could not have been entertained by the Appellate Authority. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal itself was dismissed by the Appellate Authority exercising its powers under Section 17 for non compliance of sub-section (1-A) of the Act, it would be just and equitable that in case the petitioner now deposits the amount of its liability in terms of Section 17(1-A) of the Act within a period of two months from today, the Appellate Authority would entertain the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. The counsel for the respondents have not objection to issuance of these directions. The present writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 25, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -2-