JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Smt. Onkari Devi Chowdhary has, in this writ petition, challenged the validity of the orders dated December 29, 1987, dated June 24, 1988 and dated July 20, 1989 of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. Smt. Kamla Rishi, respondent No. 2, was employed as Gram Sevika under Social Welfare Sangh, Sanganer. She filed an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Annx. 3) to the effect that she had not been paid her wages from January 1, 1987 to September, 1987 and an amount of Rs. 15,120/- was due against the non-petitioners in that petition. The Payment of Wages Authority issued notices to the Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Sanganer and upon the petitioner who was President of Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Sanganer. It appears from Annexure 4 that notices were served on the non-petitioners in that petition but they did not make appearance and were proceeded exparte. By his order dated June 24, 1988, the Authority decided the petition of respondent No. 2 and allowed her claim to the extent of Rs. 15,120/- in respect of the wages from January 1987 to September, 1987 and directed the non-petitioners, in that case, to make the payment within 30 days. The petitioner filed an application before the Payment of Wages Authority for setting aside the exparte order, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner was not served and, therefore, the exparte order was not proper and further that the Authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to decide the matter as the Bal-Badi, which is carried on for educating children by the Branch of the Rajasthan Social Welfare Board, Jaipur, was not covered under the Act and the provision of the Act was, therefore, not applicable to this Institution. This application was dismissed by the Authority by its order dated July 20, 1989, Annexure 12. 3. This application was dismissed by the Authority by its order dated July 20, 1989, Annexure 12. 3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of Section 1 (4) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Act applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory and to persons employed, otherwise than in a factory, upon any railway by a railway administration, or, either directly or through a sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration and to persons employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act. It was argued that the Institution carried on by the Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Sangh was also not an industrial or other establishment specified in Section 2 (ii) (a) to (g) of the Act. On this basis, it was contended that the impugned orders of the Payment of Wages Authority are without jurisdiction and must be quashed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 urged that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act and, since the petitioner has not availed of that remedy, this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 was that the Institution run by the Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Sangh was an 'industry' and, therefore, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 applied to it. 6. It is well settled that the matter regarding availability of alternative remedy and non-entertaining of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for that reason is a self-imposed limitation on the jurisdiction of the High Court and, ordinarily the High Court will not entertain a writ petition when alternative remedy equally efficacious and adequate is available to a petitioner. There are, however, two well settled exceptions to this self-imposed limitation. They are-lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance of principles of natural justice. Where an order is without jurisdiction, or has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court will interfere even in exercise of its jurisdiction where alternative remedy is available. 7. The Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Sanganer runs an institution for imparting education to children. They are-lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance of principles of natural justice. Where an order is without jurisdiction, or has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court will interfere even in exercise of its jurisdiction where alternative remedy is available. 7. The Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Sanganer runs an institution for imparting education to children. An educational institution may be an 'industry' but that is not sufficient to bring that educational institution within the purview of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, unless the said Act applies to it under Section 1 (4) of the Act, or unless the petitioner was employed in an industrial or other establishment of the nature as specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act. Clearly, the Institution run by the Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Sangh is not covered by the provisions of the Act, for the simple reason that the petitioner was not employed in any industry, or upon any railway. The Institution also does not fall within any of the categories specified in Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Section 2 (ii) of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 referred to certain decisions, which may also be dealt with. So far as the decision in Roshan Lal v. Ram Lal (1982 WLN (UC) 210) is concerned, suffice it to say that in that case no question of non-applicability of the Act to the employer was involved. The next decision is Jeth Mal & 47 others v. State of Rajasthan (1985 WLS (UC) 537) which had examined the question in the context of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This decision has no application whatsoever to the present case. The last case reported in Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa ( AIR 1978 SC 548 ) also dealt with the question in the context of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I fail to understand why unnecessary reliance has been placed upon the authorities which have no application to the present case. 9. The order of the Payment of Wages Authority dated June 24, 1988 (Annx. 5) is clearly without jurisdiction. If that order is quashed, the subsequent order Annexure 12 itself goes away. 10. I fail to understand why unnecessary reliance has been placed upon the authorities which have no application to the present case. 9. The order of the Payment of Wages Authority dated June 24, 1988 (Annx. 5) is clearly without jurisdiction. If that order is quashed, the subsequent order Annexure 12 itself goes away. 10. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the order of the Payment of Wages Authority, Jaipur City, passed by him in Case No. PW/249 of 1987 on June 24, 1988 (Annx. 5). 11. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******