HIGH COCRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLTR Writ Petttion No. 2139 of2003 •iS PETITIQNER : Managing Director, Emes Foundation Intemational Service 72/73 Thelewaly Sadak Near Motiya Talab Bhopal, represented by Shri M.S. Baig, son of Shri Mirza Baseer Baigh, aged about 65 years, resident of Kabeat Wali, Purani Maszid, Behind City Kotwali, Marwari Road, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : I. Anand MohanUsrathe, son ofChandraMohan Usrathe, aged about 25 years. ( 2. Poonamchaad Gupta, son of Nandlal Prasad Gupta, aged about 26 years. f Both are residents of village Moha'la Shaktipara, Nehm Ward, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 3. Ku. Kalpana Sinha, daughter of Santosh Sinha, aged about 27 years, resident of Mohalla behind Ladies Hospital, Danipara, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja(CG). 4. Smt. Joshin Milldred Tirkey, wife of Lalsai Tirky, resident of Mohalla Babupara, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhatdsgarh). 5. Presiding QfBcer, Authority Minimum Wages Act, Labour Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). CWKTI PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri. J.) Present : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on feis 1 day ofAugiist, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appeanng for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not come to this Court against an order, but the petitioner questions the jurisdiction of respondent No.5 i.e. Presiding OfGcer, Authority Minimum Wages Act, to consider the application ofthe respondent No. 1 to 4,filed before the respondent No. 5. 2. Be that as it may, it is well settled principies oflaw that ifthere is an objection with regard to jurisdiction ofan authority, an application sBould be made before the authority itself. 3. The petitioner, without raising the question ofjuiisdiction before the concemed authority i.e.respondentNo. 5, has chosen to approach this Court whea no cause ofaction has arisen. 4. This petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may challenge thejurisdiction ofthe competent authority, if so advised, before the authority below itself. No order as to costs. 5. Cons; ^dently, M(W)P No. 1936/03, application for grant ofintenm relief, also stands disposed of. .' Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge