ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions since raise the common question of law, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order after hearing counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE fact that emerges in both the cases are that the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act have allowed the workmans application for payment of wages and compensation thereof under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by Prescribed authority, the employer preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act. The provisions of Section 17 (1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which is relevant for the purpose of wages, clearly speaks that no appeal shall lie against an order or direction issued for payment of wages by the prescribed authority, unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. In both the cases it is admitted fact that the memorandum of appeal when presented had not been accompanied by the certificate of the deposit issued by the prescribed authority. It is also admitted fact that till the date of filing of the appeal, neither the certificate as stated above, nor amount was actually deposited by the appellant-employer. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer contended that it is admitted that amount was actually deposited subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The appellate authority has taken a view that since the provisions of Section 17 (1-A) of the Act, referred to above have not been complied with, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the employer argued that it may be true that at the time when the appeal was presented, it was not proper, inasmuch as neither the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by the certificate, referred to in Section 17 (1-A) of the Act, nor the amount sought to be appealed against was deposited before the appellate authority or the prescribed authority, but since the amount has subsequently been deposited, the view taken by the appellate authority that the appeal is not maintainable, deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel representing the workman has raised on objection that the contention raised on behalf of the employers counsel cannot be accepted because once an appeal is not accompanied with by a certificate or amount is not deposited before the presentation of memorandum of appeal, the definitive clause of Section 17 (1-A) of the act will apply as "no appeal under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against," and in view of the matter the subsequent deposit of the amount cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that there is yet another reason for rejection of the appeal that in case the amount has not been deposited at the time of the presentation of memorandum of appeal as has been found in the instant cases, the appeals were filed after time for filing an appeal as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act has expired, therefore the appeals ought to have been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation act. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that in the present case the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply because the provisions of payment of Wages Act, 1936,is special law and it does not provide an application of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-employer in reply to the aforesaid arguments has stated that by virtue of the provisions of section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 the provisions of Limitation Act shall automatically apply, unless specifically provided that the same will not apply and there is no specific prohibition that the Limitation Act will not apply under the Payment of Wages Act, therefore the provisions of Limitation Act will apply. The question whether the Limitation Act will apply or not is not of much substance and it is admitted case that if the appeal was filed, unaccompanied by the certificate as contemplated under Section 17 (1-A) of the act, nor the deposit was made before filing of the memorandum of appeal, but since the arguments have been advanced, it is being replied that it is settled principle that if the statute prescribed the particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, then it shall be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. The aforesaid view of mine finds support from the law laid down by Apex court in the case of Sharifuddin v. Abdul gani Loin, AIR 1980 SC 303 : 1980 (1) SCC 403 . ( 5 ) THE Payment Of Wages Act being a special law, which prescribes the mode and manner in which an appeal under Section 19 (1-A) of the Act has to be filed and the same has not been complied with, therefore, in view of the prohibitive language of Section 17 (1-A)of the Act, no appeal can be entertained as the same does not lie. In my view, the objection of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-workman that because of the prohibitive language used under Section 17 (1-A) of the Act, no appeal shall lie, unless the manner prescribed in Section 17 (1-A) of the act is followed before filing of the memorandum of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employer has relied upon a decision reported in 1987 A. W. C. , 47, particularly paragraphs 7 and 8. A perusal of the aforesaid decision would demonstrate that in that case the money was deposited within the limitation prescribed and therefore this Court held that the defect of not being accompanied by the certificate of deposit, can be cured if the same has been done within the limitation prescribed. In the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that neither the certificate accompanied along with the memorandum of appeal, nor the deposit was made within the limitation prescribed. In the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that neither the certificate accompanied along with the memorandum of appeal, nor the deposit was made within the limitation prescribed. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer has relied upon a decision regarding Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, but in view of my observations above, since the appeal has not been filed and after following the procedure prescribed and beyond the limitation prescribed, the question of the application or otherwise of Section 29 (2) of the limitation Act will not arise. ( 6 ) IN view of what has been stated above, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. The interim orders if any stand vacated. There will however, be no order as to costs.