JUDGMENT : D.P.S. Chauhan, J. The Petitioner has, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the order dated 15-5-1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Apt, Respondent No. 2. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Prescribed Authority did not consider the points which were pressed before It, and, to this effect, averments have been made in paras 11 and 12 of the petition I am not inclined to consider the merit of the aforesaid argument as advanced by the learned Counsel as I am of the view that the Petitioner should approach the Respondent No. 2 pointing out that the points which the Petitioner had argued, were not considered by the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 will be competent to deal with the matter. 4. My view finds support from a decision of the Supreme Courts Daman Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 670 . Para 13, which is as extracted below, is relevant: 13. The final submission of Shri Ramamurthi was that several other questions were raised in the writ petition before the High Court but they were not considered. We attach no significance to this submission, It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumberabla grounds in the petitions and memorandum of appeal etc. but, later, confine themselves, in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds, obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable. No party or counsel is therefore entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered. If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior Courts is not to be wasted in enquiring into the question whether a certain ground to which no reference is found, in the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before that court or not? 5. In the circumstances, the Petitioner is relegated to approach the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits.