MATHUR, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 6.8.1979 (Annex. 16) whereby the claim of non-petitioner No. 2 was decreed for wages to the tune of Rs. 19, 716.66. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was a firm registered under the Partnership Act, having its head office at Jodhpur and branch office at Bhadwasi, District Nagaur. The above firm consisted of seven partner* whose names are as under:- 1. Abdul Rahim 2. Abdul Hakim 3. Yusuf , 4. Abdul Waheed 5. Inayatullah 6. Hameedullah 7. Smt. Zenab. The firm stood dissolved from 31.12.1975 and the Registrar of Firm was informed of the decision of dissolution. Non-petitioner No. 2 is the son-in-law of non-petitioner No. 3 and he was appointed by the petitioner firm on 20.6.1962 on a salary of Rs. 120/- per month. His salary and allowances were increased from time to time. The petitioner firm transferred its business from Bhadwasi to Jodhpur office in 1972 and the non-petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Ayub was also transferred. But he did not comply with the transfer order, therefore, his services were terminated by the order dated 10.5.1971. The non-petitioner No. 2 raised an industrial dispute in. this behalf and the Conciliation Officer gave a failure report. The Government made a reference of the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The non-petitioner No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of notice and ultimately the Tribunal gave a No dispute Award on 30.4.1973. Therefore, the termination order of the non-petitioner No. 2 remained intact. The non-petitioner No. 2 filed claim petitions before the Authority under the Act at Jodhpur. The petitioner filed replies to the claim petitions and opposed the claim petition and a number of pleas were raised like time barred etc. The earlier history that some interlocutory orders were passed and the matter was agitated before the District Court and the High Court by way of revision petition and other writ petitions has no relevance for the disposal of the present writ petition. Ultimately, the claim of non-petitioner No. 2 was decreed to the extent of Rs. 19,716.66 by the award dated 6.8.1979 (Annex. 16). 3. Aggrieved against this award dated 6.8.1979 (Annex. Ultimately, the claim of non-petitioner No. 2 was decreed to the extent of Rs. 19,716.66 by the award dated 6.8.1979 (Annex. 16). 3. Aggrieved against this award dated 6.8.1979 (Annex. 16) passed by the Authority under the Act the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Merta without depositing the award amount. A preliminary objection was raised before the learned District Judge that the appeal was not maintainable under section 17 (1 )(A) of the Act as the Memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the Authority to the effect that the appellant had deposited the amount payable under the award appealed against. The learned District Judge upheld this preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by the order dated 22.2.1980 (Annex. 17). 4. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Mr. D K. Parihar learned counsel has raised an objection that as the appeal was not accompanied by the certificate as required under the provisions of Section 17(1) (A) of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. 6. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order passed by the Authority under the Act was without jurisdiction and the remedy provided under the Act was onerous. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to file the present writ petition to challenge the award of the Autho-rity under the Act. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Himmatlal Harilal Mehta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (!) and M.G. Abrol, Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. M/s. Shantilal Chhotelal& Co. (2). 7. It is true that where ever the alternative remedy is too onerous then the courts have taken a lenient view of the matter and entertained petitions directly. But Section 17 (1) (A) of the Act was inserted by way of amendment in 1965 for the purposes of advancing the social cause that the employee should be assured of the sum before he can be driven to further litigation. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom had made it a paramount condition so that the poor workman may not be made to suffer on account of litigation driven by the management. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom had made it a paramount condition so that the poor workman may not be made to suffer on account of litigation driven by the management. This is a statutory provisions which advanced the social justice and is consistent with the preamble of the Constitution. Thus, no exception can be taken and in number of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the District Judge against the award given by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act must be accompanied by a certificate that the amount in question has been deposited. In the present case, the amount in question is Rs. 19,716, 66 and this cannot be said to be too onerous for the management so as to absolve them from the statutory liability. We are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 17(1) (A) is the statutory provision which has a social purpose, therefore, no exception can be taken to such provision and more-over, in the present case the amount in question is not very huge amount for the management being too onerous. The view taken by the learned District Judge that the appeal is not competent in view of the provisions of Section 17(1) (A) is consistent with the provisions of the statute and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. Since we have found that the appeal was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge being incompetent therefore, we are not prepared to enter into the merits of the case. 8. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.