A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Gujarat Agricultural University prays that the proceedings or Payment of Wages Application No. 489 of 1987 pending before the Competent Authority Ahmedabad appointed under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 be quashed and the order dated April 19 1988 passed below Exh. 6 in the application by which the petitioner has been directed to produce certain documents be quashed and sc aside. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 in this petition is the authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 The facts giving rise to this petition be stated Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Office Superintendent on September 22 1972 by the petitioner. His services were terminated on January 11 1973 He filed special civil application in this High Court challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination of service However the petition was withdrawn on September 13 1973 After the withdrawal of the petition he filed suit in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination of service. The suit was also withdrawn some time in July 1978 Thereafter he raised industrial dispute praying for reinstatement in service with backwages. The Labour Court by its award dated July 6 1989 passed in Reference (LCA) No. 1074/82 quashed and set aside the order of termination of service and directed the petitioner-University to reinstate respondent No. 2 in service with continuity of service and with full backwages. The Labour Court by its award dated July 6 1989 passed in Reference (LCA) No. 1074/82 quashed and set aside the order of termination of service and directed the petitioner-University to reinstate respondent No. 2 in service with continuity of service and with full backwages. The petitioner-University challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid award by filing special civil application No. 454 of 1985 in this High Court The High Court by judgment and order dated February 12 1986 confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court as far as reinstatement is concerned However the High Court modified the order its regards payment of full back-wages and reduced the same to payment of 50% of backwages Respondent No. 2 was reinstated in service as Office Superintendent by the petitioner-University in July 1986 But the petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by this High Court before the Supreme Court by filing special leave petition (civil) The Honble Supreme Court granted special leave and directed the petitioner to pay 1/2 (one half) of the backwages ordered by the High Court and granted stay regarding payment of other half Some miscellaneous proceedings were also taken before the Supreme Court by both the sides but it is not necessary to refer to the same in further details for deciding this petition ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of civil appeal No. 3169 of 1986 before the Honble Supreme Court filed by the petitioner University on December 8 1987 respondent No. 2 filed application before the Payment of Wages Authority being payment of wages application No. 489/87 In this application he prayed for payment of an amount of Rs. 69 140 90 ps. as per the details given in Schedule-E to the application and also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount. Respondent No. 2 also prayed for imposition of penalty and other reliefs in the said application The University filed reply on January 25 1988 On February 18 1988 respondent No. 2 filed application Exh. as per the details given in Schedule-E to the application and also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount. Respondent No. 2 also prayed for imposition of penalty and other reliefs in the said application The University filed reply on January 25 1988 On February 18 1988 respondent No. 2 filed application Exh. 6 in the Payment of Wages application and prayed that the petitioner-University be directed to produce following documents: (1) Statement showing the details such as names date of entry in service in respect of newly appointed persons who are junior to respondent No. 2 as office superintendent; (2) The statute and other details by which the petitioner University had revised the pay-scale with effect from January 1 1973 (3) Details of employees junior to Shri G. K. Parmar i. e. respondent No. 2 namely Shri G B Shah Shri Pandya and Shri Arun Bhatt Office Superintendents (4) Yearwise details of payment of salary and other allowance paid to employees junior to respondent No. 2 for the period commencing from January 1 1973 to July 1985 (5) Payments made to Shri G. K Parmar i. e. respondent No. 2 and the basis on which the amount has been paid-details thereof. The University filed reply on February 25 1988 to the aforesaid application Exh. 6 and resisted the same The Payment of Wages Authority allowed the application Exh. 6 by order dated April 19 1988 and directed the petitioner-University to produce the documents as prayed for in Exh. 6 ( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid order was passed the petitioner-University moved the Honble Supreme Court by way of civil Misc. Petition No. 14657 of 1988 praying that the proceedings pending before the Payment of Wages Authority and the order passed below Exh. 6 be stayed As stated at the Bar the Honble Supreme Court did stay the proceedings before the Payment of Wages Authority and the order passed below Exh. 6 However the Supreme Court by order dated November 24 1988 finally disposed of Civil Appeal No. 3169/86 filed by the petitioner-University. 6 be stayed As stated at the Bar the Honble Supreme Court did stay the proceedings before the Payment of Wages Authority and the order passed below Exh. 6 However the Supreme Court by order dated November 24 1988 finally disposed of Civil Appeal No. 3169/86 filed by the petitioner-University. The order passed by the Honble Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety:this appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat wherein the reinstatement granted to the respondent by the Labour Court with full back wages was challenged and the High Court maintained the order of reinstatement but reduced the backwages to half. The reference under L. D. Act was made in this matter after a long delay of 9 years and this delay apparently was caused because the respondent filed a writ petition and then withdrew it Later he filed a suit and withdrew it Ultimately a reference was made on 5-7-1982. It is not in dispute that on 21-7-1986 the respondent was reinstated pursuant to the order of the Labour Court. The only question of back wages to which the respondent is entitled remains to be considered. In our opinion he is entitled to the salary for the period from 5-7-1982 to 21-7-1986. In round figure it will come to four years full salary. It is therefore ordered that in modification of the order of the High Court the respondent will be entitled to back wages for four years That means full salary for four years in the scale he was drawing at the time of termination of his service. If the respondent continues in service the University may consider the question of his seniority and consequential benefits if any available to him The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No 2 filed civil miscellaneous petition No 2064 of 1989 for modification of the order dated November 24 1988 passed by the Supreme Court However the Honble Supreme Court has dismissed the same by order dated April 3 1989 ( 6 ) ON January 24 1989 the petitioner University filed application Exh. 14 before the Payment of Wages Authority According to the petitioners counsel it is an application for review of the order dated April 19 1988 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority below Exh. 6 allowing Exh. 14 before the Payment of Wages Authority According to the petitioners counsel it is an application for review of the order dated April 19 1988 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority below Exh. 6 allowing Exh. 6 and directing the petitioner to produce the documents However on reading of the application which is produced at Annexure-E to she petition it is evident that the application is for dismissal of the main application on the ground that in view of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court the application did not survive The payment of Wages Authority rejected the application by order dated February 1 1989 The petitioner submitted application Exh. 16 for review of the order dated February 1 1989 passed below Exh. 14. The Payment of Wages Authority rejected this application for review as per order dated July 4 1989 inter alia on the ground that there was no provision for review in the Act and at that stage nothing further was required to be done as and by way of review. The Payment of Wages Authority directed that the main application be placed for further hearing on July 18 1989 ( 7 ) THE petitioner-University filed contempt petition No. 175 of 1989 in Civil Appeal No 3169 of 1986 before the Honble Supreme Court some time in October 1989 (the precise date has not been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner) A copy of this application has been shown to the Court. In this contempt petition the entire history of the litigation was narrated and the following prayers have been made:in the premises the petitioner humbly submits that this Honble Court may be pleased to: (1) Lake appropriate action including issue of notice to respondent for contempt of this Honble Court in so far as the order of this Honble Court dated 24-11-1988 which is being wilfully flouted; (2) direct the Competent Authority to dismiss the respondents application; (3) pass such further and other order as may be considered just and proper. The Honble Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid contempt petition by passing order dated January 15 1990 which reads as follows: Instead of taking proceedings for contempt against the respondent we deem it proper to direct him to refund the amount in excess of Rs. 21 792 within six weeks from today. The Honble Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid contempt petition by passing order dated January 15 1990 which reads as follows: Instead of taking proceedings for contempt against the respondent we deem it proper to direct him to refund the amount in excess of Rs. 21 792 within six weeks from today. We however give liberty to the respondent to claim the deficiency if any in an appropriate form. The proceedings are accordingly dropped. After the aforesaid order having been passed by the Honble Supreme Court the petitioner has filed this petition on February 18 1990 praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Payment of Wages Application No. 489/87 and for quashing and setting aside the order passed below Exh. 6 in the aforesaid payment of wages application. ( 8 ) IT is contended that the Payment of Wages Authority is wrongly proceeding on the looting that it is required to consider the compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court. The award passed by the Labour Court has merged in the order passed by this High Court and which has been subsequently modified by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore what is required to be considered is final order passed by the Honble Supreme Court. If this is considered as the basis than nothing is required to be done by the Payment of Wages Authority. Therefore it is submitted that the main application does not survive and it is required to be rejected. ( 9 ) IT is submitted that the main application is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation which is one year as per the proviso to section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 It is also contended that the Payment of Wages Act does not apply to the petitioner-University inasmuch as it is neither a factory nor an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clause (i-b) or clause (ii) of section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 It is further contended that the claim made in the application is neither with regard to delay or deduction of wages. Therefore it cannot be subject matter of application under Payment of Wages Act 1936 ( 10 ) IN support of the aforesaid contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Haji Latif Gami vs. Abdul Rasheed Shaikh Mohmad Khan reported in 1963 (2) LLJ 257 . Therein it is inter alia laid down that the preliminary issue regarding limitation should be decided first. The authority concerned must satisfy itself that there was good and sufficient reason for making application beyond the period of one year and then only it may pass order admitting the application before proceeding to deal with the same on merits. However the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court is of no help to the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D. P. Muheshwari vs. Delhi Admn. reported in AIR 1984 SC 153 . Therein the Supreme Court has laid down that the Tribunals should not decide preliminary issues and other issues piece-meal. The Honble Supreme Court has observed as follows:there was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals. particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Court in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wail to the detriment of those who can in afford to wait by dragging the letter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled legal position as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court the decision of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Haji Latif Gami (supra) cannot be said to be good law. The Payment of Wages Authority is required to decide the issues together as per the mandate of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. Again it may be noted that the question as to whether there is delay in filing the application or not and as to whether there is sufficient cause for not condoning the delay or not are not pure questions of law. These are mixed questions of law and facts. The second proviso to section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 inter alia provides that any application may be admitted after a period of twelve months when the applicant satisfied the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Therefore it is the satisfaction of the Authority which is the relevant matter. The Authority can be satisfied by leading evidence in case it becomes necessary. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court the questions with regard to limitation as well as condonation of delay need not be decided as preliminary issues. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has railed upon a decision of Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. vs. SB Bhatt reported in AIR 1961 SC 970 . He has particularly drawn our attention to para 11 of the decision wherein the Honble Supreme Court has after refering to the relevant provisions of the Act inter alia observed as follows: Section 15 confers jurisdiction on the authority appointed under the said section to hear and decide for any specified area claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages of persons employed or paid in inter area. It is thus clear that the only claims which can be entertained by the authority are claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages. The jurisdiction thus conferred on the authority to deal with these two categories of claims is exclusive for Sec. 22 of the Act provides the matters which lie within the jurisdiction of the authority are excluded from the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. The jurisdiction thus conferred on the authority to deal with these two categories of claims is exclusive for Sec. 22 of the Act provides the matters which lie within the jurisdiction of the authority are excluded from the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. Thus in one sense the jurisdiction conferred on the authority is limited by Sec. 15 and in another sense it is exclusive as prescribed by Sec. 22. Relying on the aforesaid observations made by the Honble Supreme Court it is submitted that the application is not maintainable inasmuch as the claim made in the application is not in relation to deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the claim is not in relation to deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages the convention cannot be accepted. In the immediately succeeding para 12 of the same decision the Honble Supreme Court has observed as follows:in dealing with claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages the authority inevitably would have to consider questions incidental to the said matters. In determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to affect or impair the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority. Thereafter in same para the Honble Supreme Court has observed that it would be inexpedient to lay down any hard and fast or general rule which would afford / determining test to demarcate the field of incidental facts which can be legitimately considered by the authority and those which cannot be so considered. Thus it would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. At this stage when even issues have not been framed by the Competent Authority and no evidence has been led by either side it cannot be said that the authority exercising powers under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 has no jurisdiction to proceed with the application. This issue also may require the parties to lead evidence and the authority may be required to investigate and examine the facts. This issue also may require the parties to lead evidence and the authority may be required to investigate and examine the facts. ( 13 ) THE convention that the basis of the reasoning of the Payment of Wages Authority in passing the impugned order Annexure-H dated April 19 1988 is wrong may be examined. The aforesaid order was passed on April 19 1988 Thereafter the Honble Supreme Court has disposed of civil appeal No. 3169/86 on November 24 1988 In the impugned order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority what is considered necessary is to examine and decide as to whether as per the order of the Honble Supreme Court the amount of wages has been paid or not. This is exactly the question which the Payment of Wages Authority thinks that it is called upon to decide. Therefore it cannot be said that in view of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court on November 24 1988 finally deciding civil appeal No. 3169/86 the application does not survive. Had it been so the Honble Supreme Court would have given this direction and would have passed appropriate order in this behalf. ( 14 ) BE it noted that after the impugned order dated April 19 1988 and the order passed below Exh. 14 on January 24 1989 and the order passed on Exh. 18 for rejecting the review application of February 1 1989 the petitioner-University moved the Honble Supreme Court in October 1989 by way of contempt petition No. 175/89 in Civil Appeal No. 3169 of 1986. The prayers made therein have been reproduced hereinabove in para 7 of this Judgment. Before the Honble Supreme Court one of the prayers was that the Competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act be directed to dismiss the application filed by the respondent. This Contempt petition has been decided by Honble Supreme Court on January 16 1990. Even so the Honble Supreme Court has not granted the prayer directing the Payment of Wages Authority to dismiss the application. Instead the Honble Supreme Court has reserved liberty to respondent by making following observation:we however give liberty to the respondent to claim the deficiency if any in an appropriate form. Even so the Honble Supreme Court has not granted the prayer directing the Payment of Wages Authority to dismiss the application. Instead the Honble Supreme Court has reserved liberty to respondent by making following observation:we however give liberty to the respondent to claim the deficiency if any in an appropriate form. Thus it is not correct to say that on account of the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court the proceedings before the Payment of Wages Authority have come to an end or that the same would not survive now. ( 15 ) IN this connection it may be noted that the Payment of Wages Application No. 489/87 has been filed on December 8 1987 Thereafter the Honble Supreme Court has disposed of Civil Appeal No. 3169/86 on November 24 1988 In that appeal the Honble Supreme Court did not pass any order as regards payment of wages application. Again when the petitioner-University filed contempt petition No. 175/89 in Civil Appeal No. 3169/86 before the Honble Supreme Court the petitioner-University had narrated the entire history. There is reference to the order passed below Exh. 6 on April 19 1988 by which the petitioner-University has been directed to produce the documents mentioned therein. There is reference to order passed below Exh. 14 by which the authority refused to dismiss the main application. There is also reference to order dated February 1 1989 passed below Exh. 18 by which the application for review of the order dated January 24 1989 has been rejected. Even so the Honble Supreme Court has not granted specific prayer made by the petitioner-University to direct the Payment of Wages Authority to dismiss the application filed by the respondent. Therefore if this Court now entertains the petition for granting the prayer for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Payment of Wages Application pending before the Competent Authority this Court would be silting in appeal over the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court. This is neither permissible nor proper for this Court to do. ( 16 ) AS indicated hereinabove whether the main application is beyond time or not is a mixed question of law and facts which requires investigation and examination of facts. Therefore at this stage it cannot be said that the application needs to be rejected. This is neither permissible nor proper for this Court to do. ( 16 ) AS indicated hereinabove whether the main application is beyond time or not is a mixed question of law and facts which requires investigation and examination of facts. Therefore at this stage it cannot be said that the application needs to be rejected. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of section 1 (4) read with the provisions of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 the Act does not apply to the petitioner-University inasmuch as the petitioner is neither factory nor industrial or other establishment as specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of section 2 of the Act. Whether the petitioner University is an industrial or other establishment is a question which would require examination of facts. Without recording evidence and examining facts this question cannot be decided. Therefore the argument that the Act does not apply to the petitioner-University cannot be considered at this stage. ( 18 ) WHETHER the claim is with regard to delay in payment of wages or deduction of wages is a matter which would also depend upon examination of facts as regards the claim made by the petitioner and also as regards the incidental question which the Authority has jurisdiction to decide as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Ambica Mills (supra ). Therefore also this question cannot be decided at this stage in this petition. ( 19 ) IT may be noted that till today the Payment of Wages Authority has not framed issues. The petitioner-University has been directed to produce documents mentioned in Exh. 6 which have been mentioned hereinabove in para 7. We do not think that the documents are irrelevant as is sought to be argued. No prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the petitioner-University if the documents are produced before the Payment of Wages Authority. It may be noted that the University is a public body. It cannot and should not shy away from producing documents before the Authority constituted under the appropriate provisions of the Act. Even if it ultimately turns out that the documents were not relevant no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the University. It may be noted that the University is a public body. It cannot and should not shy away from producing documents before the Authority constituted under the appropriate provisions of the Act. Even if it ultimately turns out that the documents were not relevant no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the University. ( 20 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons we do not think it proper to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the proceedings pending before the Payment of Wages Authority. No other contention is raised. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is rejected. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated Rule discharged. . ( 21 ) AFTER the judgment is pronounced today in open court Mr. D. V. Patel learned counsel appearing for Mr. D. G. Chauhan requested that the operation and implementation of the aforesaid judgment and order vacating the interim relief be stayed for some time so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Honble Supreme Court. In faces of the case request is refused. Petition Dismissed. .