IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.14746 OF 2011 Date:18-04-2011 Between:- The Executive Engineer, R.W.S.Post Sadashivpet, Medak District. .. Petitioner And The Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Old PW.No.5/2007 (New PW.No.35 of 2010) as maintained by respondent No.1 earlier, now by respondent No.2 Authority and to quash the order, dated 14.08.2007, passed by the respondent No.1 Authority in I.A.No.1/2007 in Old PW.No.5 of 2006 (New PW.No.35 of 2010) holding that the amendment made to Section 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ‘the Act’) vide Amendment Act No.41 of 2005 has retrospective effect to be bad in law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Deputy Executive Engineer and also holding additional charge of Executive Engineer (RWS) at Sadashivpet, Medak District. Respondent No.3-workman has filed a claim petition under Section 15 of the Act claiming unlawfully deducted wages for a period from 01.12.2001 to 31.12.2006 to a tune of Rs.60,946/- and ten times over the wages as compensation. Respondent No.3 is claiming to be Grade-I N.M.R. Plumber and his claim is based on S.S.R. Wages, which are annually revised. Respondent No.3 was employed only as a Man Mazdoor and there is no Plumber post of Grade-I in the petitioner’s department and respondent No.3 was having only formal education of 5th class and does not have any technical skill to claim wages of post of Grade - I Plumber, for which qualification of I.T.I. (Plumber) is required. The petitioner has filed a detailed counter in the claim petition, but respondent No.1-Authority over ruled the pleas taken in the counter and passed the impugned order, dated 14.08.2007, holding that the Amendment Act 41 of 2005 is retrospective in operation. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The petitioner raised a point that respondent No.3 was not entitled to the amount claimed in the claim petition in view of the provisions of the Act for the simple reason that he was drawing wages more than Rs.1,600/- per month. Respondent No.3 is said to have filed an application claiming unlawfully deducted wages for the period from 01.12.2001 to 31.12.2006 in the category of Plumber. By the time the application was numbered, the Payment of Wages (Amendment) Act, 2005 has already come into force with effect from 05.09.2005. 5. Section 1(6) of Payment of Wages Act stipulates the condition of a wage limit for the application of Act. The amendment Act 41 of 2005 fixes a wage limit of Rs.6,500/- per month. After this amendment came into force with effect from 09.11.2005, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order holding that the amendment Act 41 of 2005 is retrospective in operation. Since the amendment came into force, it applies to all cases pending before the concerned authorities. The amendment is not a new provision but the words “Six Thousand Five Hundred Rupees per month” was substituted for the words “One Thousand Six Hundred Rupees per month”. So, it can be said that it comes into operation from the date of the incorporation of the main provision. Further, payment of wages is a beneficial piece of legislation, which has to be interpreted to do substantial justice to the workmen. 6. The Writ of Certiorari will be to control the inferior Tribunals and sub-ordinate Courts, if they purport to act without jurisdiction or in excess thereof, or in violation of principles of natural justice, or commit an error of law apparent on the face of record. It cannot be granted to quash the decision of a sub-ordinate Court or an inferior Tribunal within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision is wrong. 7. The impugned order is passed by respondent No.1 in an interlocutory stage. The contentions raised by the petitioner can as well be raised after adducing evidence by both parties. Any observation of this Court or any finding of respondent No.1 cannot be construed as a finding attained finality. Therefore, respondent No.1 has considered each and every aspect and rightly came to the proper conclusion. Therefore, it is not desirable to entertain the writ petition. 8. In similar circumstances, this Court has taken a similar view in W.P.No.4602 of 2006, vide order, dated 09.03.2006, and in W.P.No.7202 of 2008, vide order, dated 04.09.2008. The order in W.P.No.4602 of 2006 was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.496 of 2006, vide judgment, dated 24.07.2006. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.14746 OF 2011 Date:18-04-2011 AMD