HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 13052 of 1995 Between: A.Venugopal and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Chittoor & others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 13052 of 1995 ORDER: The order under challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the fifth respondent in P.W.No. 1 of 1991 dated 21.07.1994, directing the fourth respondent to pay wages/salary to the sixth respondent. The contention of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are required to bear the financial burden; they as members of the Cooperative Society are required to pay wages; the Special Officer, who was then in-charge of the Society, had committed fraud and had colluded with the sixth respondent resulting in the order being passed; the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners were not put on notice; the enquiry report of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, whereby the sixth respondent was held guilty of certain charges, was not even brought to the notice of the fifth respondent/Payment of Wages Authority; and, in such circumstances, the order of the fifth respondent was without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time it was the person-in-charge who was in-charge of the Society wherein the sixth respondent was employed as its Secretary. Notice was given by the fifth respondent to the person-in-charge. No provision, which requires every member of the Society to be put on notice before an order can be passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, has been brought to the notice of this Court. The challenge to the order, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, must fail. With regards the contention that the order is without jurisdiction, the mere fact that the Society is a Cooperative Society would not disentitle the fifth respondent from examining the claim for payment of wages as long as the sixth respondent falls within the category of an employee/workman. While Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, would dispute the fact that the sixth respondent, who was the Secretary of the Society, was an employee/workman under the Payment of Wages Act, this contention gives rise to a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be agitated for the first time in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With regards the plea of fraud, it is well settled that the degree of proof required to establish fraud is of a very high order for which evidence may have to be let in. Since the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, I consider it wholly inappropriate to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and adjudicate the validity or otherwise of the impugned order on merits. Leaving it open to the petitioners herein to avail the remedy of an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:17.02.2010 usd