Judgment RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has arisen in the following circumstances : the petitioner is a Banking Society registered under the Rajasthan co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short the Act of 1965 hereinafter ). Respondent No. 2 Hari Ram was appointed as manager of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti by the Rajasthan Cooperative credit Institutions Cadre Authority Ltd. , Jaipur. The salaries to the Managers of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samitis were dispursed by the petitioner Bank on behalf of the Rajasthan co-operative Credit Institutions Cadre Authority Ltd t Jaipur. ( 2 ) A Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1018/79 Kheda Rasulpur Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on May 9, 1991 held that establishment of the Cadre authority as a Co-operative Society was against the provisions of Section 6 of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1965 and there cannot be any centralised service or a common cadre of the Managers appointed at various primary agriculture co-operative society. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner Bank is not under an obligation to make payment on behalf of the Authority to the Manages appointed by the Cadre Authority but the primary agriculture society where such Managers have been appointed, is directly responsible for making the payment of their emoluments as the real rilationship of employeremployee exists between the employer society and the Manager. ( 3 ) IN the present case, respondent No 2 has moved an application before the Payment of Wages Authority Bikaner (for short the Authority hereinafter), on May 30, 1991 under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages act, 1936, (for short the Act of 1936 hereinafter), for recovery of the wages from the petitioner Bank for the period from January 1985 to August 1987, April 1988 to November 1988, January 1989 to March 1989 and from october 5. 1989 to April 1991 alleging that the petitioner has illegally deducted the wages for the aforesaid period. ( 4 ) IT was alleged that for the aforesaid period prior to October 5, 1989 full wages were deducted, after October 5, 1989 50% of the wages were illegally deducted by alleging that the suspension of the respondent No. 2 was illegal. 1989 to April 1991 alleging that the petitioner has illegally deducted the wages for the aforesaid period. ( 4 ) IT was alleged that for the aforesaid period prior to October 5, 1989 full wages were deducted, after October 5, 1989 50% of the wages were illegally deducted by alleging that the suspension of the respondent No. 2 was illegal. ( 5 ) THOUGH the authorised representative of the petitioner appeared on May 3, 1991 and June 6, 1991, he could not appear on June 20, 1991. As a result of his absence, the Authority passed an ex- parte order on october 5, 1991 directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 46,230/-on account of illegal deduction of wages and Rs. 92,460/- as compensation for illegal deductions totaling Rs 1,38,690/ -. ( 6 ) THE Authority held that for the period January 1985 to August 1987 april 1988 to November 1988 and from January 1989 to March 1989 full emoluments were illegally deducted and from October 5, 1989 to April 1991, when the applicant, respondent No. 2 was under suspension, 50% of the wages were illegally deducted holding that suspension was illegal. Rs. 630/-were held payable on account of annual grade increments and Rs. 610/-as House Rent Allowance from April 5, 1989 to April 30, 1991. ( 7 ) IT is this order which has been challenged in this petition. ( 8 ) NO return has been filed. ( 9 ) THE first contention of the petitlonr was that the Authority under payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by respondent No. 2 It was urged that petitioner, which is engaged in the business of Bank, in neither a Factory nor a Railway Administration nor an industry specified under sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act of 1936 nor there is any Notification, either of the Central government or of the State Government, declaring the establishment like the petitioner as an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) (h) of the Act of 1936. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1936 are not applicable to the petitioners establishment. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1936 are not applicable to the petitioners establishment. ( 10 ) THE aforesaid facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No 1 It was urged by him that petitioner is engaged in banking and is a Commercial Establishment within the meaning of Rajasthan shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1988 (for short the Shop Act, hereinafter), and the Establishment of the petitioner is also an establishment to which provisions of Minimum Wages Act; 1984 (for short the Act of 1948 hereinafter), are applicable. ( 11 ) BY Notification No F 1 (7) Lab 69 dated December 13, 1982 issued under Section 22f of the Act of 1948, the Rajasthan State Government which is an appropriate Government for the purpose of the petitioners establishment, has directed that all the provisions of the Act of 1936 shall apply to wages payable to employees in the schedule employments specified in the said Notification which includes Shops and Commercial Establishment at serial No. 6. ( 12 ) THUS according to respondents, the Payment of Wages Act is applicale to the petitioner establishment by virtue of Notification issued under Section 22f of the Act of 1948. ( 13 ) HAVING perused the various provisions of the Payment of Wages act, Rajasthan Shop and Commercial Establishment Act and Minimum wages Act, 1948, I am of the opinion that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not well founded and must be rejected. ( 14 ) IT is true that on the admitted facts the provisions of the Act of 1936 are not applicableto the petitioners establishment by their own force. But the provision of Section 22f of the Minimum Wages Act which is reproduced herein below are clear in this regard | 22f. Application of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to scheduled employments : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Payment of Wages act, 1936 (4 of 1936), the appopriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), all or any of the provisions of the said Act, shall with such modification, if any, as may be specified in the notification, apply to wages payable to employee in such scheduled employments as may be specified in the notification. (2) Where all or any of the provisions of the said Act are applied to wages payable to employees In any scheduled employment under sub-section (1), the Inspector appointed under this Act shall be deemed to be the Inspector for the purpose of enforcement of the provisions so applied within the local limit of his jurisdiction. ( 15 ) UNDER Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1948, the provisions of Minimum wages Act are applicable to scheduled employments. By virute of notification referred to above employment under all shops and commercial establishment are scheduled employment. Banking being a commercial establishment within the meaning of Shop Act becomes one of the scheduled employment to which provisions of Minimum Wages Act are applicable. Section 22f further empowers are appropriate Government to make the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. with or without modificatin to any of the scheduled employment as may be specified in the notification. ( 16 ) IT is not in dispute that in the aforesaid Notification, the application of the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. the Sbops and commercial Establishment have been included and under the provisions of the Shops Act, Section 2 (3) which defines Commercial Establishment, a Banking establishment is included in the definition. ( 17 ) THUS reading these provisions together it must be held that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act have been made applicable to the Banking establishment also by virtue of Notification under Section 22f of the Act of 1948. ( 18 ) IN this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to make out that cadre of Management have not been included to be covered by the provisions of Minimum Wages Act so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, provisions of Payment of Wages Act are not applicable. ( 18 ) IN this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to make out that cadre of Management have not been included to be covered by the provisions of Minimum Wages Act so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, provisions of Payment of Wages Act are not applicable. The provisions of Payment of Wages Act also cannot be applied to the petitioner qua the management cadre because for the applicability of the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, through Notification 22f, it is precondition that the applicant must be one to whom provisions of Minimum wages Act are also applicable His contention is that applicability of the Act of 1948 to any establishment vis-a-vis its employees, to conditions are sina-quanon (i) that establishment must be included in the schedule under Section 2 (g) to which the application of the Act is extended and (ii), the employer must be a person who employees other person in the schedule employment in respect of which Minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act and as AO minimum rate of wages have been fixed for the Managers employed with Banks second condition necessary for the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to the petitioner has not been established and therefore, the provisions of Payment of Wages Act cannot also be deemed to have been extended to the petitioners establishment vis-a-vis respondent No. 2. ( 19 ) IT is no doubt true that in order to the applicability of Section 22f of the Minimum Wages Act for extending the operation of the Payment of Wages Act to any of the establishment specified in the Notification, it is a precondition that to such an establishment, the provisions of Minimum wages Act be applicable. ( 20 ) IT is also true that for the applicability of the Minimum Wages act establishment must have been included in the employment specified in Part-1 and Part-2 of the schedule initially or by Notification under section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act. For the present it may also be assumed that the further condition which is essential for the applicability of the Act is that the appropriate Government must have fixed the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed under such scheduled employment. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well founded on facts. For the present it may also be assumed that the further condition which is essential for the applicability of the Act is that the appropriate Government must have fixed the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed under such scheduled employment. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well founded on facts. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 2 has drawn my attention to the Notification No. F. 7 (3) Lab/83 dated January 15, 1985 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated January 16, 1985 issued under section 5 (1) of the Act of 1948 and from time to time thereafter that the state Government has prescribed rates in commercial establishment. Thus this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must fail on facts and it must be held that the authority appointed under payment of wages act had necessary jurisdiction in respect of. respondent No. 2 to entertain an application for seeking direction in respect of alleged illegal deductions from his emoluments. ( 22 ) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Authority under Payment of Wages suffers from the errors apparent on tbe face of record and must quashed on merit. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that question of jurisdiction having been decided against the petitioner, the petitioner must be left free to prosecute alternative remedy of moving an application for setting (aside) the ex pane order under Rule 8 of the Payment of Wages rules or to prefer an appeal anainst the impugned order before the District judge under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. ( 23 ) HAVING carefully considered the facts alleged in the petition and apparent from the order itself and keeping in view the fact that the petition had been entertaind about two years back on the ground of patent lack of jurisdiction, I am not inclined to entertain the preliminary objection of the alternative remedy at this stage and relegate the petitioner to appropriate alternative remedies, limitation to which must have been lost during the pendency of this petition. ( 24 ) FROM the close examination of the impugned order, I find that the order suffers from patent errors on the face of record. ( 24 ) FROM the close examination of the impugned order, I find that the order suffers from patent errors on the face of record. ( 25 ) FIRST the Authority under Payment of Wages Act is an Authority of a limited jurisdiction and had no jurisdiction to decide upon the question of the legality of the orders of suspension while deciding a case under payment of Wages Act. Secondly, the Authority under Payment of wages Act has apparently erred in ignoring the fact that a person who had been kept under suspension during the pendency of enquiry, he is entitled to wages which are permissible under the relevant rules for the period during the suspension, pending enquiry. ( 26 ) THIRDLY, the Payment of Wages Authority failed to differentiate between the suspension pending enquiry. Clause (iii) of explanation of Section 7 (1) is applicable to loss of wages as a result of suspension by way of penalty and not by way of suspension during the pendency of enquiry. ( 27 ) MOREOVER Section 15 (2) prescribes 12 months from the date on which the deductions from wages are alleged to have been made illegally or from the date on which the payment of wages were due to be made has been prescribed as limitation for making an application. From the application itself, it is apparent that in terms of Section 15 (2), the respondent no 2 could have filed claim only in respect of illegal deductions or delayed payment which was made or due on or after May 30, 1990 as the application was filed on May 30, 1990 but rest all the claims which were barred by time. ( 28 ) AN application beyond time could be admitted only if the applicant satisfies the Authority that he bad sufficient cause for not making the application within time. No application was made by the respondent no. 2 disclosing any cause much less sufficient cause for not making an application within the period. An application beyond time could be admitted only the applicants showing sufficient cauge and after bearing the opposite side and such admission of such time barred application must be a conscious act that is to say after due application of mind to the question The impugned order does not disclose any such conscious application of mind in admitting the time barred claim without hearing the opposite side. ( 29 ) IN this connection, the facts which have been placed by the petitioner in this writ petition and which have not been disputed also assume great importance. ( 30 ) THE respondent No. 2 applicant had been found guilty of causing loss to its employer society vide three orders for Rs. 11823. 58 plus Rs. 100/-expenses, Rs. 6875. 07 plus Rs, 300/- surcharge and Rs. 100/- expenses and rs. 6800/- plus Rs. 100/- as expenses These demands were raised under section 74 of the Co-operative Societies Act after the respondent No 2 admitted his liability in respect thereof. The directions to make payment of such amount was with interest and the applicant had before the filing of the application before Payment of Wages Authority requested in writing on September 6, 1989 vide Annexure-9 to the petitioner Bank to adjust the amount of salary from January 1985 to August 1987, April 1988 to november 1988. January 1989 to March 1989, against the aforesaid amount outstanding against him. ( 31 ) ALL these facts were within the knowledge of the applicant which he did not disclose in his application and by concealing the material facts that he himself had agreed more than one and half year before the filing of the application under the Payment of Wages Act for adjusting the amount of salary for the a fere said period against the amount outstanding against him as a result of proceedings taken against him under Section 74 of the Co-operative societies Act and such demand has been raised against him on his own admission. ( 32 ) SECTION 7 (2) (c) clearly postulates the deduction from the wages of the employed persons for damages or loss of money for which employee is required to account and where such payment or loss is directly due to employees negligence or default are permissible deductions- The petitioners letter of request of adjustment of amount has not only a direct bearing on the question of validity of deductions but also on the question of entertaining his claim which was clearly barred by time. ( 33 ) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it is only just and proper that the impugned order of the Authority under payment of Wages Act, Bikaner dated October 5, 1991 is set aside and the application of the respondent No. 2 is directed to be decided by the Authority under payment of Wages Act in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petition to place all material before him. ( 34 ) THE petitioner shall also he entitled to raise the plea whether he can be considered as an employer of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of Payment of Wages for the period in question keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 2 is a person not employed by the petitioner under him at any of its establishment but is only a disbursing authority on behalf of cadre authority which according to the above Division Bench decision of this Court was not a lawfully constituted Authority, and the managers were the employees of the primary agriculture society under whom they are actually employed. ( 35 ) IT is further clarified that amount of wages as directed by the authority, if already paid to the applicant Hari Ram shall not be recovered from him until final decision by the Authority in pursuance of the order. However, recovery of any amount due from the said applicant to the bank in accordance with law will not be affected by this order. ( 36 ) THE petition stands disposed off accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly