Judgment Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, the petitioner herein, feels aggrieved by the registration of a case against it under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act (for short ‘the Act’), before the 1st respondent, at the instance of the 2nd respondent. The Devasthanam has a separate Forest Wing. It appears that about 300 persons have been engaged in the year 1988. However, they were discontinued, after sometime. Efforts were made by the persons, so engaged, to get themselves reappointed or reinstated. The matter was agitated before the Government as well as the Trust Board of the Devasthanam. The Government issued memo, dated 06.01.2005, giving certain directions to the Board. The Board, in turn, passed a resolution, on 24.10.2005, for allotment of work to about 300 former mazdoors. The resolution, however, was not implemented. Correspondence ensued in this regard. The persons for whose benefit the resolution was passed, constituted themselves into a society, and that they, in turn, filed W.P. No. 15954 of 2007 before this Court with a prayer to direct the Devasthanam, to implement the resolution, dated 24.10.2005. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi, the 2nd respondent, received petitions from the representatives of the erstwhile casual mazdoors. One such petition is dated 06.08.2007, through which, the Secretary of the Mazdoors prayed for a direction to the Devasthanam to pay the wages from the date of resolution i.e. 25.10.2005 to 24.06.2006. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings before the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Act, with a petition to condone the delay. The 1st respondent issued notice to the Devasthanam. Appearance was entered before the 1st respondent and the Devasthanam raised objections, as to the very maintainability of the case. Through his order, dated 27.09.2007, the 1st respondent overruled the objections raised by the petitioner, and held that the petition is maintainable. The delay in filing the petition was also condoned. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that when the so-called casual mazdoors are not in service and are in fact agitating for implementation of the resolution, the question of payment of wages does not arise. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the effort made by the 2nd respondent is only to ensure that the wages that are prescribed under the relevant G.Os. are paid to the erstwhile casual mazdoors. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the 1st respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the effort made by the 2nd respondent is only to ensure that the wages that are prescribed under the relevant G.Os. are paid to the erstwhile casual mazdoors. Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the sine qua non for invoking the provisions of the Act is that an individual must be in employment and that either he was totally denied the wages or, was paid less than the minimum wages prescribed for the post. He contends that it was not even alleged that the persons, for whose benefit the wages are claimed have rendered service at any point of time subsequent to the resolution. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent did not verify even the basic facts, before he invoked the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Labour, on the other hand, submits that the question as to whether the relief claimed in the petition filed before the 1st respondent can be granted or not, has to be considered at the hearing and it cannot be said that the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. The 2nd respondent set in motion, the mechanism under the Act by approaching the 1st respondent. The basis for him to initiate the proceedings is the representation received from “TTD Service Organizations Federation, Tirumala, dated 06.08.2007”. It has already been mentioned that the question of re-engaging 300 persons, who were earlier engaged as forest casual mazdoors, has received the attention of the Government and the Devasthanam from time to time and ultimately, the same resulted in passing of the resolution, dated 24.10.2005. That resolution was not implemented is evident from the very representation, dated 06.08.2007. It reads as under: “As per the reference 1st cited above it was requested by the TTD SOS to the Government of A.P. to pass orders directing the TTD management to allot work to the 300 Forest Casual Mazdoor Labourers. And in response to the said orders, the TTD Management has passed a resolution No. 453, dated 24.10.2005 for allotting work to the 300 labourers and instructed the E.O. TTD, to that effect. And in response to the said orders, the TTD Management has passed a resolution No. 453, dated 24.10.2005 for allotting work to the 300 labourers and instructed the E.O. TTD, to that effect. But the E.O. TTD has not allotted work to us due to which we being the poor mazdoor labourers are facing lot of inconvenience in feeding our respective families. It is therefore requested your kind self to kindly allow our claim in accordance with the resolution passed by the TTD Board from 25.10.2005 to 24.06.2006 to the extent of Rs.67,71,600/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Seventy One Thousands and Six Hundred Only) and see that the said amount is disbursed to the poor labourers.” It is not as if that subsequent to this representation things have improved and the resolution came to be implemented. As a matter of fact, the said casual mazdoor labourers constituted themselves into the society and filed W.P.No.15949 of 2001. The relief prayed for in that writ petition is, “to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the resolution No.453, dated 24.10.2005 passed by the TTD Board and allotting the workers on nomination basis to the petitioner-society as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to allot the works to the petitioner-society as per the resolution”. It clinchingly proves that the members of the society were not allotted any work and they have to await the outcome of the writ petition filed by them. It is a matter of record that the writ petition is still pending. In this scenario, the very basis for the 2nd respondent to move the matter before the 1st respondent becomes shaky and untenable. Even being conscious of the fact that the erstwhile casual mazdoors have not been engaged in pursuance of the resolution, the 2nd respondent proceeded to claim wages for them. Without verifying this, the 1st respondent entertained the petition. It is a clear case of crossing the lines of jurisdiction conferred upon him under the Act. When a specific objection was raised before the 1st respondent, as to the maintainability of the case, a callous and totally untenable view was expressed. The discussion centered around the nature of activities undertaken by the Devasthanam. The basic question that the persons for whose benefit a case was instituted are not in employment on their own showing, was not at all adverted to. The discussion centered around the nature of activities undertaken by the Devasthanam. The basic question that the persons for whose benefit a case was instituted are not in employment on their own showing, was not at all adverted to. The record clearly discloses that the persons for whose benefit the case was entertained are not in employment, much less they are working. Therefore, the question of payment of wages or difference of wages, does not arise. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings initiated before the 1st respondent against the petitioner at the instance of the 2nd respondent in P.W.No.16 of 2007, are quashed. There shall be no order as costs.