Letters Patent Appeal No.671 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) LPA No.671 of 2009 M/s Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents (2) LPA No.672 of 2009 M/s Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Date of Decision:28.7.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of L.P.A.Nos.671 and 672 of 2009, as both the appeals are separate but identical orders have been passed. Facts are, however, referred from LPA No.671 of 2009. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is Letters Patent Appeal No.671 of 2009 2 directed against order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in CWP No.20100 of 2008 titled M/s Haryana Steel and Alloys Limited Versus State of Haryana and others. The learned single Judge has upheld the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for brevity “the Act”). It is appropriate to mention that the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on the principal ground that the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit of the awarded amount was not complied with as envisaged by Section 17 (1-A) of the Act for entertainment of the appeal. The learned single Judge has repelled the argument that any application for making payment of pre-deposit as per requirement of Section 17 (1-A) of the Act was maintainable as there is no provision in the Act. Accordingly, the learned single Judge permitted the petitioner-appellant to deposit the amount of its liability in terms of Section 17 (1-A) of the Act within a period of two months from the date of the order, then the Appellate Authority was to entertain the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law. Mr.P.K.Mutneja, learned counsel for the appellant, has addressed numerous arguments on merits of the controversy. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-workman did not discharge any duty during the period from August 2007 to September 2007. He has also made submission that according to Section 22 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SICA Act”), no application under the Act could have proceeded. Letters Patent Appeal No.671 of 2009 3 After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the course adopted by the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference because no plea of the appellant- petitioner, on merits, could be entertained, until and unless the appellate Court records an opinion on those issues. It is patent that the appeal of the appellant-petitioner has not been heard on merit on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 17 (1-A) of the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge has adopted the correct approach by relegating the appellant-petitioner to deposit the amount of the award within a period of two months from 25.5.2009 and then the Appellate Authority was to entertain the appeal for decision on merits, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the period of two months granted by the learned single Judge is extended for a further period of ten days with effect from today. A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (M.M.Kumar) Judge 28.7.2009 (Jaswant Singh) AS Judge