AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhaskaran, Ag.C.J.
By Exts. P-1 and P-2 notices, the 2nd petitioner-2nd appellant was informed by the Management that his wages of 8 days for the month of February, 1984, would be deducted. It is for the quashing of Exts. P-1 and P-2 by the issue of a writ of certiorari and for the issue of a direction to the respondent to forbear from deducting the wages as proposed in Exts. P-1 and P-2 by the issue of a writ of mandamus, the writ petition was filed. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that if in violation of the provisions of the payment of Wages Act, 1936, deduction was proposed to be made or had already been made, the remedy provided under that statute itself had to be resorted to. The plea that resort to the statutory remedy provided would entail delay and hardship to the 2nd petitioner-2nd appellant did not appeal to the learned Judge, in whose opinion that was not an extraordinary circumstance for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 could not be invoked in every case where there is delay or hardship which are of the ordinary character for which remedy is provided by the statute itself. Counsel for the appellants cited the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Baliah v. Secretary, I.D., Ltd., (1976-II L.L.J. 247). That was a decision in which aggrieved by the deduction of wages made by the Management, the workmen approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act u/s 15(2) read with section 16 and pursued the matter in appeal and thereafter in revision to the High Court. This has no application to the facts of this case.
Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in O.P. No. 10529 of 1983 dated 1-2-1984. That is clearly distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.