Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the impugned orders passed by the authority Under Payment of Wages Act dated february 26, 1999 and the appellate order dated July 5, 2003. ( 2 ) THE Authority Under Payment of wages proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite service. The petitioners even submitted an application on December 22, 1997 stating that applicants-claimants never worked with them. Even after taking defence in writing, nobody appeared before the authority under Payment of Wages Act for the petitioners. The Authority under Payment of wages Act held that applicants are entitled for the arrears of wages, which is Rs. 2,800/- for each workman. The authority also allowed Rs. 500/- as penalty. ( 3 ) THE petitioners preferred appeal before the District Judge Balotra, but without depositing the requisite amount as per Section 17 (1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellants have not deposited the said amount m time. It is further relevant to mention that appeal of the appellant was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants as the appeal itself was filed late and without depositing the amount awarded. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that delay was condoned by the First appellate Court, but the Appellate Court committed illegality in not entertaining the appeal on merits on the ground that the requisite amount was not deposited by the petitioners in time. According to learned counsel for the petitioners that the requirement of deposit of amount not mandatory for which learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the allahabad High Court delivered in the case of nagar Palika, Ghazipur v. Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Assistant labour Commissioner, Varanasi and others 1992 lic 1580. ( 5 ) AFTER going through the entire facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioners did not appear before the Authority under Payment of wages Act and the Authority under Payment of Wages Act passed the order on the basis of the material available on record. ( 5 ) AFTER going through the entire facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioners did not appear before the Authority under Payment of wages Act and the Authority under Payment of Wages Act passed the order on the basis of the material available on record. ( 6 ) IN view of the above reasons and in view of the fact that the petitioners did not deposit the amount in time as per the provision of Section 17 (1-A) of the Payment of Wages act, I am not inclined to entertain the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.