THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.28273 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in entertaining the application filed by second respondent under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act in P.W.No.15 of 2007 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and without jurisdiction. Petitioner is management of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer. The respondents 1 and 2 are the authorities under Payment of Wages Act. It appears, the second respondent filed an application before the first respondent alleging that 300 Forest Casual Mazdoor Workers were not paid wages from 25.10.2005 to 24.6.2006 amounting to Rs.67,71,600/-. Challenging the said claim made by second respondent before first respondent, the present writ petition is filed. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application as the provisions of Payment of Wages Act are not applicable to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams as the Petitioner Devasthanam is neither a factory nor an Industrial Establishment to attract the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner-Devasthanam never engaged/employed the forest casual mazdoor, therefore question of payment of daily wages does not arise. The application filed by the second respondent is untenable and unsustainable in law. Though no counter is filed by the respondents, the learned counsel Sri P.Govind Reddy appearing for Respondent No.3 strenuously contended that it is for the Primary Authority to decide as to whether it has got jurisdiction or not. The petitioner-Devasthanam should file its counter and invite the order against this issue. Without inviting the order as to jurisdiction, petitioner cannot file writ petition before this Court. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. Admittedly, second respondent laid claim before the first respondent seeking wages of 300 forest casual mazdoors for a specific period i.e. from 25.10.2005 to 24.6.2006. Petitioner never said that the forest casual mazdoors did not work during that period. I am of the considered opinion that unless and until an order is invited from the Primary Authority as to its jurisdiction, petitioner Devasthanam ought not to have filed the present writ petition to scuttle the claim. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition in this shape is not maintainable. However, the first respondent is directed to proceed with the matter against the petitioner after asserting facts as regards employment of persons for whose benefit the claim was laid. The first respondent shall decide as to whether it has got jurisdiction to decide the matter and whether the forest casual mazdoors were engaged by the petitioner during that period or not. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 2.8.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.28273 of 2007 2.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.28273 of 2007 Date: 2nd August, 2010 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor district. .. Petitioner And The Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool Region, Kurnool and others. .. Respondent