JUDGMENT : Ravi S. Dhavan, J. Four writ petitions have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through Prabhagiya Nideshak, Samajik Vaniki Prabhag, Meerut, i.e. the Department of Social Forestry, challenging certain proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. In short, what aggrieves the State of Uttar Pradesh is that the District Judge has unsuited the State of Uttar Pradesh as an appellant for the simple reason that prior to filing an appeal u/s 17, the condition precedent is that under Sub-section 1-A of Section 17 of the Act, aforesaid, the memoranda of appeal must be accompanied by a certificate on the claim which has been awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority u/s 15. The contention in the writ petitions is that the case itself is devoid of merits and the claims cannot be awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority and the stipulation that the appeal must be accompanied by a certificate of deposit of the amount on the claim as awarded, is an onerous condition and, thus, in effect, a writ is desired from this Court for a waiver of the claim prior to consideration of the appeal. 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is afraid that the Court cannot make different standards between employers whether they are industrialists or the State of Uttar Pradesh or the Union of India. No two sets of law operate for one class of citizens and another for the State. Both will be judged by the same standard and if the requirement of the law is laid down for an employer, even if it is the State, the employer will be bound by the contents of law. The State of Uttar Pradesh is, thus no exception. 4. As the four writ petitions of the State of Uttar Pradesh paise common issues, they are being taken up for consideration by the Court by this order on all of them One set of orders is dated 26 July, 1993 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority is case No. 211 of 1990 and 212 of 1990 (Annexure 4 to each of the respective writ petitions). In one writ petition, the workman concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Tara Chand and in the other writ petition, the workmen concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Gyan Singh. In one writ petition, the workman concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Tara Chand and in the other writ petition, the workmen concerned is Satyapal Singh s/o Gyan Singh. In the other two writ petitions, the order impugned are dated 17 November, 1993. This order of the Payment of Wages Authority (also Annexure 4 to the respective writ petitions), though the orders are separate, have been passed in Case No. 33 of 1993 and Case No. 34 of 1993 In the writ petitions which impugn the proceedings, the workmen concerned are Krishna Pal s/o Dhruv Singh and Messrs Bal Kishore and Sunil Kumar, parentage of the first is not given, and the second as s/o Rajpal. 5. Whatever be the worth of the claim, the Payment of Wages Authority by orders dated 26 July, 1993 and 17 November 1993 allowed wages as were due to the workmen and, in addition, also awarded compensation as penalty. On each of the claim petition, the amount as awarded to each of the workman, being the wages due, the compensation and the gross amount which was awarded to the workman concerned, is reproduced in the table below: Case No. Filed by Amount Awarded Compensation Total amount 211/90 Satyapal Singh s/o Tara Chand Rs. 56425/- Three times of Rs. 56425/- Rs. 2,25,700/- 212/90 Satyapal Singh s/o Gyan Singh Rs. 56425/- Three times of Rs. 56425/- Rs. 2,25,700/- 33/93 Krishnapal Singh Rs. 69914.66 Rs. 349574.40 Rs. 4,19,489.28 34/92 Bal Kishore Rs. 15947.61 Rs. 79738.05 Rs. 95685.66 34/93 Sunil Kumar Rs. 66047.32 Rs. 330236.60 Rs. 396283.92 6. Against each of the orders, aforesaid, against which a respective petition has been filed, being the set of orders dated 26 July, 1993 and 17 November, 1993, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed appeals before the District Judge, Meerut, being Misc. Appeals No. 262/93, 263/93, 25/93 and 24/93. At the time when the memoranda of appeal was presented before the District Judge, each appeal was accompanied with an application of the State of Uttar Pradesh that it be allowed one month's time to pay the amount awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority. Apparently, the indulgence to pay the amount so awarded was granted by the appellate Court, but despite the assurance to deposit the amount, no deposit was made by the State of U.P. 7. Apparently, the indulgence to pay the amount so awarded was granted by the appellate Court, but despite the assurance to deposit the amount, no deposit was made by the State of U.P. 7. When it came to consider the appeals of the State of U.P., the learned District Judge, Meerut, in each of his four orders, placed on record, in effect, that it was admitted by counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh that unless the memoranda of appeal u/s 17 is accompanied by a certificate of deposit of claim so awarded, a requirement under Sub-section (1-A), the appeal would not be maintainable. The District Judge hat also placed on record that the State of Uttar Pradesh applied for extension of the time to make the deposit and file the certificate, but, it has not done so. Thus, as the State of Uttar Pradesh took time to bring and file the certificate of deposit, reference Section 17(1-A), but, did not do so, the appeal was dismissed, by the District Judge, was not being maintainable. 8. It is against this order that the writ petitions have been filed. 9. The Court has heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. V. Malviya, Advocate, on the writ petitions filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh The Court does not find any error or irregularity in the order of the District Judge in appeals so as to Issue notice on this petition to permit the State of U P., with the aid of a writ of certiorari, to question the correctness of the orders. It is for two reasons that this Court declines to interfere with the orders of the learned District Judge. 10. The first aspect is that when the State makes an assurance or a promise to a Court to do certain things, it must abide by that promise. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an application before the District Judge, Meerut that it would bring in the amount so awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority, impliedly, it gave an accordance to the Court that the memoranda of appeal would be accompanied by a certificate as stipulated under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 17 of the Act. This assurance was given in formality by an application. The State cannot resile from its assurance. On this the only aspect which has been submitted to the Court is that the amount is too heavy. 11. This assurance was given in formality by an application. The State cannot resile from its assurance. On this the only aspect which has been submitted to the Court is that the amount is too heavy. 11. The second aspect of the matter is that notwithstanding the assurance which the State of U.P., gave, the rule of law u/s 17 of the Act aforesaid, is very clear in its term. It stipulates that a memoranda of appeal must be accompanied with a certificate of deposit of the amount on the claim as awarded. The issue before the Court is that whether the case is before the Court or not it is free to represent its case without complying with the aforesaid requirement, which the State of Uttar Pradesh may do as a litigant or as an appellant. But, this Court cannot permit two standards for an industrialist as an employer and the State as an employer. The law will descend on them equally. The Court cannot apply its discretion to waive the amount which the law stipulates that the memoranda of appeal must be accompanied with a certificate of deposit. Suffice It to say that the certificate as stipulated under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 17 of the Act did not accompany the memoranda of appeal. Tans, the appeal itself is not maintainable and as long as the remedy of appeal is available to the State of Uttar Pradesh the question of examining the merits in a writ petition by the High Court under Article 226 does not lie because here again the standard of alternative remedy will not vary for an ordinary citizen or the State. 12. The only indulgence which this Court can grant to the State of Uttar Pradesh is that the amount which has been awarded insofar as St represents the wages should become the subject matter of a deposit on which a certificate may be obtained, minus the penalty which has been awarded by the Payment of Wages Authority. The award of penalty, under Sub-section (3) of Section 15 the Act itself stipulates, is a matter of discretion which can be seen at the time of award. Thus, this Court cannot vary the amount which has been awarded to the workman by the Payment of Wages Authority as the amount of the claim will become the subject matter of an appeal. The penalty part is only consequential. Thus, this Court cannot vary the amount which has been awarded to the workman by the Payment of Wages Authority as the amount of the claim will become the subject matter of an appeal. The penalty part is only consequential. Thus, while there is no dispensation for the State of Uttar Pradesh in not making the deposit of wages which has been awarded to the workmen concerned, the deposit of the compensation as penalty will remain in abeyance in the circumstances of this case. 13. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. V. Malaviya, has sought the indulgence of the Court that the certificate of deposit, on the deposit being made, be permitted to be obtained within two months. The Court grants this indulgence to deposit the amount of wages so awarded, minus the compensation, which, if deposited within two months from today, learned. District Judge, Meerut will treat the appeals as within limitation. 14. Regard being had to the overall circumstances the Court has not found the writ petitions as appropriate for a certificate action for issue of a writ of certiorari and accordingly the petitions are consigned to the record as dismissed. 15. Certified copy, if applied, may be given to learned Counsel for the parties on payment of scheduled charges within a week.