2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking
"....to issue a Writ, order or direction more
one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS
declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in
allowing the P.W.20 of 2013 dated 19-1-2021 to
pay the differential amount of wages to the 1st
respondent for the period from 21-12-2011 to till
his termination i.e. on 1-3-2013 in terms of the
wages fixed by the Government vide GO No.73 LET
& F Dept. dated 21-12-2011 is illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to law and consequently set aside the
same and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
SN,J
W.P.No.4202_2021
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the
Petitioner No.1 is a private unaided school i.e., Christhu
Jyothi Vidyalayam located at Christianpally, Mahabubnagar,
and the Petitioner No.2 is a Reverend Priest overseeing a
Church (Ashramam) located at Pillalamarri. The Respondent
No.1 falsely claimed employment as a Watchman-cum-
Attender in the school, based on fabricated documents. The
Labour Court, in I.D. No. 31 of 2014, and the Criminal Court,
in S.C.No. 122 of 2016, both rejected the Respondent No.1's
claim, holding that he was never employed by the
Petitioners and had created false documents. The
Respondent No.1 is attempting to misuse the legal process
to claim benefits and unlawfully occupy Ashramam land.
Despite clear findings in the earlier cases, the Respondent
No.2 again initiated proceedings under the Payment of
Wages Act in P.W.No. 20 of 2013, seeking wages from 1983
to 2013. Aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the
respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
SN,J
W.P.No.4202_2021
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed
by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition
contends that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as
prayed for by the petititoners.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that the present writ petition is not
maintainable in view of Section 17(1) of the Payments of
Wages Act, 1936.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.2 submits that the petitioners have effective alternative
remedy and therefore, this Court cannot decide the subject
issue under this jurisdiction.
7. Section 17(1) of the Payments of Wages Act,
1936 is extracted hereunder:
"17. Appeal (1) An appeal against an order
dismissing either wholly or in part an application
made under sub-section (2) of section 15, or
against a direction made under sub-section (3) or
sub-section (4) of that section] may be preferred,
within thirty days of the date on which [the order
or direction] was made, in a Presidency-town
SN,J
W.P.No.4202_2021
[***] before the Court of Small Causes and
elsewhere before the District Court."
8. The Division Bench of Apex Court in a judgment dated
20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s.
Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks (reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1) and further the said
view had been reiterated by a Full Bench of the Apex Court
(3 Judges) in a judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online SC
page 801 in Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited Vs. State of
Bihar and Others dated 24.09.2021 and in the said
judgment it is observed as under :
28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution
to issue writs can be exercised not only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any
other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to
entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions
placed on the power of the High Court is where
an effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person;
SN,J
W.P.No.4202_2021
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of a fundamental right protected by
Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice; (c)
the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is
challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest
the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution in an appropriate case though
ordinarily, a writ petition should not be
entertained when an efficacious alternate
remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing
the right or liability, resort must be had to that
particular statutory remedy before invoking the
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the
High Court is objectively of the view that the
nature of the controversy requires the exercise
of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not
readily be interfered with."
SN,J
W.P.No.4202_2021
9. This Court opines that the present case falls
under clause (ii) (v) of the Judgment referred to and
extracted above.
10. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned
Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of
the respondent No.2 and,
c) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgment
(referred to and extracted above),
The writ petition is dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
09.06.2025
Note: CC by today
B/o.LPD
