V. Govardhan Naik, S/o v. Bajja Naik, aged about

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueaWrit,orderordirectionmoreoneinthenatureofWRIToF MANDAI\IUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in allowing the P.w.20 of 2013datedlgllt2o2ltopaythedifferentialamountofwagestothelst respondent for the period from 2111212011 to till his termination i.e- on 11312013 in termsofthewagesfixedbytheGovernmentvideGoNo.T3LETandFDept. dated2ltl2t2Ollisillegal,arbitrary,Contrarytolawandconsequentlysetaside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 202t4 Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir(urstances stated in the affidavit fil'r(1 i.r support of the writ petition, the High oout mr y be pleased to permit the pet 1i:)r 3' to receive the material paper of 2n' shovr cruse notice No. P.W.2012023 dat<.C 01?--02-2024 as additional material 6:aprr:rs ;rnd receive the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition Lrrdr:'Section 151 cPC praying that in the circu nslances stated in the affidavit filt:c ir support of the writ petition, the High c:oLrt T€ry be pleased to Suspend the o:r:rat c,n of the order of the '1st respondent in p Vt.2O of 2013 dated 191112021 penrjinl: r isposal of the main Writ petition. l Counsel for the, Pet tioners : SRI KASU BAL REDDY Counsel for the Re: pondent No.1 : SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RA() Counsel for th: Re: pondent No.2 : Gp FOR LABOUR The Court macr: the rollowing: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 1 WRIT PETITIO N No.42O2 OF ?OZL ORD ER: Heard Sri Kasu Bal Reddy, learned counsel appearirrg on behalf of the petitioners, Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2 The oetitioners aDproached the C urt see kino Draver as under: "....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 1't 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 2t-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." i I I l t I i 1 I { : ,j 2 SN,J W P Nc 4202 2OZI

3. -[hr:r :ase of Jyothi \iidyalayam Petitic ner \!o.1 is the petitioners, in brie :f, is; t.hat the a private unaided schooi r.e , Christhu located at Christianpally, tvlah;rbrrbnagar, and th: t)( tiiloner No.2 is a Reverend priest ovttrs;eeing a Churcl (Asrramam) located at pillalamarri. The R3srondent No'1 larsr.rly craimed employment as a watchrnarn_cum_ Attendr:r ir. the school, based on fabricated documr:n;s. The Labour (: l.rt, in I.D. No. 3l of 2014, and the Orimirra Court, in S.C.llcr. 122 of 2016, both rejected the Respor:rle,nt No.1,s claim, l- olri ng that he was never emplcryeld t y the Petitionr:r.s and had false doccrments. The misuse the leqal p-ccess created Responcl,:nt: \o,1 is attempting to to clain bt:,rrefits and unlawfully occupy Despite <: e a i. findings in the earlier cases, No.2 aga n nitiated proceedings under Wages A:t to 2013. the Payrnent of ir. F'.W.No. 20 of 2013, seeking wages ti.om 1983 t\ lgrieved by the arbitrary actron of the Ash -arna m land. the Respc,ndent I I responde - ,:s, t he petitioners filed the present wri.: pet ti( n. prscuss=[o.N AN D N I N Ir 3 sN,l W.P-No.4202 2021

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placing reliance on the averrnents 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 appeariilg 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 ju risdiction. Se n1 1 o h Pa nts of 1935 is extracted hereu n er: "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 sectionl may be preferred, within thffty days of the date on which [the order or directionl was made, in a Presidency-town 4 SN,J \V. P. N o.4202 2021 l.*'" * I before the Court of Small (lausrls and elsr:rrvhere before the District Court.,, 8 -I_hS_Division Bench of Apex Court in ajg_d_g1rr[ nt da d e rted tn 28=q4.2Q_: l1 re (20 1) M s. Radh.,1kr.i=: ;hnan I dus nes Vs. State ofH machal Prade h, referred R qistrar of Tra de scc:, 77 Mark l-r-s 1i the said v !n o 9 f lhe AI view.!:anl_Deen reiterated bv a ,ex ourt (3 Ju(-qe_g) in a iudoment reoorted in (2O2lLS_crl O_n !j nCrse oaoe .EOl_ Ln Maqadh Suqar and E Bihar__-q11[ Others dated 24.O9.2O21 and _in lLhe said iudqnl_e=1t-g_ it is ob erved as un der : tqd_V-s. Sta :Za. i'he principtes of taw which emergc., are that: (i) fhe power under Article 226 of the C(rn:ititution o rssue writs can be exercised not ortly for the ,tnforcement of fundamental right:s, bt:tt for any trther purpose as weltl ( ii,t e h t e'nt t e o n f laE aO effective atternate qaarieved oerson: r t t not to rist!-_s o rt t ; where rztla.hkt to the ,,/ r- 5 sN,l W.P.No.4202 2021 (iii) Exceptions to the rule of elternate remedy arise where (a) the writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right Protected by Part Ifi of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural iustice; (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 he entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided bY law; (v) n ht i, db as e reme the rioht or Iiabilitv. resort must be had to that kin th before rocedu which i enforc , Constitut.ion. This rule of exhau stion of statutorv remed ies is a rule of Dolicv, conve nience and discretion; and 226 ,-l (vi) fn 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 ohiectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not ,""iity be interfered with." ,I I 6 SN,J \'/. r.N L4202 2021

9. fhis Court opines that the present case fails undel cl ruse (ii) (v) of the Judgment referrerd to and extr,l cte,, above.

10. 'rA! NG INTO CONSID ERATION: a) 'The aforesaid facts and circums;tanr:e:; of the b) l'he submissions made by the learned counsel appearinr] on behalf of the petitioners ancl the tearned Governm 3nt pleader for Labour appearing on hehatf of the r,-.rrrpondent No.2 and, c) '[he view of the Apex Court in the Judgment (refe.r'ecl to and extracted above), ll'her writ petition is dismissed. Howe,yer, there shall be no order as to costs. tlis,: r rlla neous applications/ if any, penriinr; shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPYi/ SDi- L. 'r'IJAYA LAXMI AF SISTAt\lT REGIST " SEC IION OFFICER 1 The Auth: I it,/ i nd Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranrla Redd y Zone, Hyderabtrrl J -rrler Payment of Wages Acl, 1972 One CC 1o SR (ASU BAL REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 2 a .

3. One CC to SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate tOPUCl 4.TwoCCstoGPFORLABOUR,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies. BSK w HIGH COl.ilR'T DATED:0910$12025 \ ORDER WP.No.42tt2 tf 2021 I3C TODAY ST ATE o6' 1 t il't lffi l:.- a :tr l; 9 o + r1 ;5-1, or'-,( I I DISMISSIT{G THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC)STS fl1 ,\r' 1