CW 6102/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6102/08 Adhar Shodh Sansthan Versus Prescribed Authority & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 23/03/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. B.L. Gupta, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order of Payment of Wages Authority dt.29th April, 2008 whereby preliminary objection raised by petitioner about maintainability of application being barred by limitation was rejected. However, further observed that it could be examined only after parties are permitted to lead evidence at the stage of final hearing on the application. Respondent-workman filed application u/s.15 (2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 claiming wages for the period from April, 2002 to September, 2004 which was filed on 27th May, 2007 along with application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of application. However, respondents have raised preliminary objection that it is not maintainable and the application be outrightly rejected. CW 6102/08 [2] The learned Prescribed Authority taking note of preliminary objection raised and so also the fact that application has been filed duly supported by application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation observed that this could be considered only at the stage of final hearing of the application after parties are permitted to lead evidence and no opinion at this stage can be expressed. Counsel for petitioner has tried to convince this court that u/s.15(2) of the Act such claims raised by respondent-workman are barred by time and could not be entertained by the Prescribed Authority. However, u/s.15(2) second proviso if sufficient cause being shown, application can be entertained by the Prescribed Authority. No opinion at this stage can be expressed and it is not the case of the petitioner that application filed by respondent-workman is not annexed with the application seeking condonation filed application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act. In the facts no prejudice is otherwise caused to the petitioner and certainly, he is at liberty to lead evidence in support of their defence which will be considered by the Prescribed Authority in accordance with law and however, will not be CW 6102/08 [3] influenced by what has been observed under order impugned while disposing of application finally after hearing parties. This court does not find any any manifest error committed in passing order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA6102CW08 23-3.doc