N. L. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 11. 10. 1991 passed in the Civil Revision No. 3 of 1990 by the IInd additional District Judge, Aligarh. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as a salesman in chhetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Ruheri, Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) on temporary basis. It is stated that he committed embezzlement and was negligent in performance of his duties. He used to absent himself from duties. Therefore, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent. The respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 15 of the payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) before the Prescribed Authority/astt. Labour Commissioner under the Act, district Aligarh, claiming wages due from the petitioners. The petitioners filed a written statement and contested the case under Section 15 of the Act, on the ground that claim of respondent No. 3 was highly time-barred and the claim of the petitioner was not maintainable before the Prescribed Authority under the Act. It was also stated that the claim of the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act was barred by Section 24 of the Minimum wages Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioner submitted an application before the Prescribed Authority under the Act for deciding as a preliminary issue that the claim of the opposite party was barred by limitation as well as the application under Section 15 of the Act was not maintainable. ( 3 ) THE Prescribed Authority by order dated 22. 12. 1989 decided the preliminary objection. It was stated by the opposite party that the employer have illegally not paid the wages amounting to Rs. 11,732/- for the period from April, 1988 to September, 1988. Ten times damages was also claimed on the amount unpaid. The Prescribed Authority was pleased to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 15 of the Act and the objections of the petitioner raised and sought to be decided as preliminary issue were negatived. It was directed that the petitioner may file their written statement and evidence in the proceedings. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority filed a civil revision before the District Judge. It was directed that the petitioner may file their written statement and evidence in the proceedings. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority filed a civil revision before the District Judge. Aligarh, on the ground that the order passed in the proceedings under Section 15 of the Act could be appealed under Section 17 of the Act. Since the appeal was maintainable, the civil revision filed was held to be not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Judgment and order of the learned revisional Court is patently illegal. He submitted that the order passed was not a final order and no appeal lay against such an order. It was submitted that it was an interlocutory order and the order condoning the delay in filing of the application under Section 15 of the Act was also patently illegal. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the civil revision filed before the lower revisional Court was illegally rejected and the order rejecting the civil revision is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the order of the lower revisional Court dismissing the revision on the ground that the appeal was maintainable is to be adjudged. A perusal of Section 15 of the Act shows that the Prescribed Authority is to hear and decide according to law disputes relating to investigation and settlement of Industrial Disputes enforced in the State arising out of deduction of wages, or delay in payment of wages of persons employed or paid in that area including all matters incidental to such claim. The provision of section 15 (3) of the Act also confers jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing of the application for payment of wages, delayed or illegal withdrawal or deducted as the case may be. In the present case, provisions of Section 15 fully applies to the case of the opposite party. The allegations as made in the application brings the case within the four corners of provisions of section 15 of the Act. It is also within the domain and jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to condone the delay in filing of the application for payment of wages on his being satisfied that there existed reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. The allegations as made in the application brings the case within the four corners of provisions of section 15 of the Act. It is also within the domain and jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to condone the delay in filing of the application for payment of wages on his being satisfied that there existed reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. The discretion of course has to be exercised judicially after hearing the parties to the lis. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the opposite parties claimed under Section 15 which was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds of delay and jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority in adjudicating the matter before him. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and giving the due opportunities to them at the request of the petitioner decided to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 15. There was no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 15 of the Act as admittedly the respondent was employed at the concern of the petitioner and comes within the purview of the workmen. There was no error in entertaining the application under Section 15 of the Act and condoning the delay. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it was an interlocutory order and no appeal could be entertained under Section 17 of the Act. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act are quoted as under: "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 a direction made under Sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of that Section may be preferred within 30 days on the date on which (the order or direction) was made, in a presidency town before the Court of small causes and elsewhere before the district Court". The provisions of Section 15 (2) are quoted as under:"where contrary to the provisions of this Act and deduction has been made from the wages of an employed persons, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself or any legal petitioner or any official or a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3 ). Provided that every such application shall be presented within 12 months from the date of which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made, as the case may be": Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (12 months) when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. ( 8 ) THE above provision clearly shows that the Prescribed Authority has the discretion of condoning the delay if a petition is filed beyond 12 months as provided in the section. It is evident from the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had raised the plea of bar of limitation. The said plea of the petitioner was negatived by the Prescribed Authority and it was held that the delay was to be condoned for the reasons stated in the order. Thus, the order of the Prescribed authority is fully covered within the provisions of Section 15 (2), proviso, and as such an order is appealable under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner himself had requested the Prescribed authority to decide the question as a preliminary issue which has been decided. Merely because the order was passed as a preliminary issue, that would not bring the case outside the purview of section 15 (2) of the Act. The section itself is clear and there is no ambiguity to that aspect. It appears that the petitioner was wrongly advised to file the revision before the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was rightly rejected by the Additional district Judge. The section itself is clear and there is no ambiguity to that aspect. It appears that the petitioner was wrongly advised to file the revision before the District Judge against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was rightly rejected by the Additional district Judge. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am not satisfied that the present petition calls for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, it is observed that the Prescribed authority may decide the petition under Section 15 pending before him at an early date, preferably within 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this Judgment and order before him. In the result, the petition is dismissed summarily. .