1. Assistant Commissioner Development, Anantnag and nine other functionaries of the State Rural Development Department have filed this petition seeking quashment of an award of Rs.6969105/- passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anantnag) hereinafter referred to as the Authority. 2. About 402 persons who are arrayed as private respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) in the case filed a petition under the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority seeking direction against the Assistant Commissioner Development, Anantnag (petitioner No.1) for payment of Rs.18952680/- and Rs.44076/- as their delayed wages for the wage period March, 1996 to September, 1999. The applicants’ case before the Authority was that they were appointed during the period 1985 to 1999 on different dates but the respondents have not paid them their due wages as admissible to them under the Payment Wages Act. The non-applicants (petitioner herein) resisted the claim of the applicants on various grounds interalia that the application was not maintainable as the non-applicants were not empowered to appoint any person on temporary or regular permanent basis and that the applicants have never served the respondents during the period as alleged by them. They further stated that the names of the applicants did not figure in the records of the Department in the statement of daily wagers maintained by the Department. 3. Six issues were framed by the Authority in the application which are as under- 1. "Whether the applicant is maintainable in the present form? 2. Whether the application is time barred? 3. Whether the applicants have been employed by Rural Dev. Deptt.? 4. Whether the applicants have received any kind of wages? 5. Whether the applicants have been properly appointed? 6. Whether the documents filed by the applicants are genuine?" 4. On taking evidence of the applicants the Authority came to the conclusion that the applicants before it were duly appointed as daily wagers and were entitled to the wages under the Act. The Authority further found that the petitioners have not paid due wages to the respondents to the extent shown by the Authority in its order. The Authority allowed the application and directed as under:- "I hold that the applicants are entitled to wages as shown below Block Wise as per Govt. order (Daily Wage Rates) No. 33-F of 1997 dated: 10-2-1997 @ Rs. The Authority allowed the application and directed as under:- "I hold that the applicants are entitled to wages as shown below Block Wise as per Govt. order (Daily Wage Rates) No. 33-F of 1997 dated: 10-2-1997 @ Rs. 35/- per day, No. 10-F of 1999 dated: 10-2-99 @ Rs. 45/- per day. Name of Block No. of daily wager Period 9/98 to 9/99 Amount of wages due per head Total wages Remarks Achabal 136 do 16245.00 2209320.00 - Shangus 46 do 747270.00 Shahabad 36 do 584820.00 - Breng 22 do 16245.00 357390.00 Qazigund 25 do 16245.00 406125.00 - K. Pora 45 do 16245.00 731025.00 - Dachnipora 65 do 16245.00 1055929.00 D.H. Pora nil - Nil (The app. did not lead any evidence to prove their claim) - Qaimoh 27 do 16245.00 438615.00 - Kulgam 27 do 16245.00 438615.00 - Total 429 6969105.00 The affidavit filed by Block Dev. Officer Shahabad in favour of Famadoo Akhter D/o Gh. Hassan Khan and Hamida Banoo D/o Ab. Majid Mir are redundant as these deponents have never figured in the Annexure "A"., The detail of the un-paid wages are given in Annexure "D" Block Wise. During the course of the arguments it transpired that the applicants have been engaged by/ worked virtually under the control of Block Development Officer’s. The Block Dev. Officers are responsible for payment of the delayed wages. Non-applicants 2 to 11 baring S. No. 9 therefore are directed to pay the wages to the concerned applicants @ Rs. 16245.00 (Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred and forty five only) each within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order. In the circumstances of the case no order to compensation under Section 15(3) of payment of Wages Act." 5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the said award passed by the Authority. It is contended that the Authority has acted without jurisdiction, it has not properly considered the matter and has not gone into actual controversy which arose in the matter. The controversy, according to the petitioners, is that whether the applicants before the Authority were validly appointed daily wagers or not. Since the contention regarding their engagement as daily wagers has specifically been denied by the non-applicants in their reply to the application before the Authority, the Authority, according to the petitioners, was required to return a proper finding on this issue. Since the contention regarding their engagement as daily wagers has specifically been denied by the non-applicants in their reply to the application before the Authority, the Authority, according to the petitioners, was required to return a proper finding on this issue. The Authority, as stated by the petitioners, has taken into consideration the photocopies of the engagement orders and has accepted claim of the applicants on the basis of fake and forged documents. Reply has been filed by the respondents. 6. Heard. I have considered the matter. Mr. Jalali, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary plea regarding maintainability of the present petition, as according to him, alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of appeal against the order passed by the Authority but instead of availing such remedy the petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court which is not permissible in the facts and the circumstances of the case. 7. Mr. Jalali has cited the following authorities in support of his contention i.e, B.D.O Khag v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act & ors., 2007 SLJ 256, District Rural Dev. Agency v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act 2008 SLJ 61 and Director Horticulture & anr. v. Assistant Labour Commissioner & ors. 2009 SLJ 79. He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in LPA No. 173/2007 titled Western Bus Service v. Assistant Labour Commissioner & ors. decided on 16.10.2007. All these authorities lay down that a writ would not lie where an efficacious remedy is available to the party. 8. Mr. Hilal Akbar Lone, learned counsel for the petitioners has resisted the contentions of Mr. Jalali on the ground that the order of the Authority being without jurisdiction, there is no bar to file a writ petition in view of the settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. 9. On consideration of this issue, I find the petitioners have raised certain vital issues which would show that the Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the case. The petitioners contend that the findings returned by the Authority are without jurisdiction, as such, this Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction, interfere in the matter and find out whether the action of the Authority was in accordance with law or not. The petitioners contend that the findings returned by the Authority are without jurisdiction, as such, this Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction, interfere in the matter and find out whether the action of the Authority was in accordance with law or not. An alternate remedy of appeal in the circumstances will not be a bar for this court to invoke its writ jurisdiction in the matter. The contentions of Mr.Lone in this behalf gets sufficient support from various authorities of the Apex Court and this Court, relied upon by him. Reference in this behalf may be made to Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur & Ors AIR 1987 SC 2186 and Tramboo Joinery Pvt. Ltd v. Authority under Payment & Wages Act 1998 SLJ 78 (DB). 10. On consideration of the main matter, I find due force in the pleas raised in the present petition. I have gone through the record which was summoned from the concerned Authority. 11. As would appear from the Order impugned, one of the issues for consideration before the Authority was whether the applicants (respondents herein) were properly appointed. A specific plea was raised by the petitioners before the Authority that the engagement orders relied upon by the respondents were not genuine one and that they had not been engaged at all. It was in the background of these objections that issue no.5 was framed in the case. The Authority has recorded evidence on the issue and returned a finding in favour of the respondents. The issues regarding payment of wages and relief sought by the respondents for the same was therefore, dependant on the findings on issue no.5. The main dispute thus is regarding genuineness and validity of the appointment of the respondents and payment of wages is incidental thereto. Under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, the Authority can only entertain the application for dealing with in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fine not authorised under section 7 to 13 and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed under Section 4 and the time of payment laid down in Section. The finding recorded by the Authority on validity of the appointments of the respondents is therefore, without jurisdiction. The finding recorded by the Authority on validity of the appointments of the respondents is therefore, without jurisdiction. Since the Authority has acted without jurisdiction while dealing with issue no.5 and all other issues particularly the issue regarding payment of wages was dependant on issue no.5, I find the order impugned cannot stand. The petition is therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Authority is set aside. Petition allowed.