1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1890 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.1383 OF 2011 WITH C.A.NO.1384 OF 2011 WITH C.A.NO.6010 OF 2011 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.06.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner had assailed the order passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Mr.Barde, learned counsel raised a preliminary objection that in view of Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, substantive appeal is provided. In view of the efficacious alternate remedy, this Court may not exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of 2 the Constitution of India. 3. Mr.Upadhye, learned counsel submits that the orde4r impugned is without jurisdiction. There is no relationship of Employer - Employee. The Respondent have not worked even for a single day. There are admissions to this fact. In view of the fact that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error, this Court may entertain the present Writ Petition. So also the remedy of appeal can not be said to be an efficacious remedy as the petitioner would be required to deposit the amount. 4. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be dilating much on the factual matrix of the case. It is in a substantive appeal, the same can be gone into by the appellate authority. All the grounds which are being agitated in the present Writ Petition can be agitated before the appellate authority. It is not disputed even by the Respondents that the present petitioner can prefer an appeal U/s 17 of the said Act. In view of the alternate efficacious remedy available, I do not intend to entertain the present 3 Writ Petition. The petitioner is at liberty to file the appeal against the order impugned. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy. If an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall consider the time consumed in prosecuting the present remedy while considering the condonation of delay application. 6. The statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondents on instructions of the Respondents who are present in the Court that the Respondent would not proceed with the execution of the impugned decree is continued upto 5.7.2011. 7. All the Civil Applications are disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.06.2011. asp/office/wp1890.10 4