1. Shri Ghulam Nabi Gujri son of Fateh Gujri Resident of Baramulla and his 35 other colleagues-respondents 2 to 36 herein, on 12.01.2004 approached the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, (Kashmir Division) Srinagar, (herein after the Authority) with an application under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act 1936, (the Act, for short) pleading that the non-applicants-present petitioners, had been making illegal deductions from their wages in disregard of Section 7 of the Act and sought a direction under Section 15 of the Act, to the non-applicants-present petitioners, requiring them to pay the respondent 2 to 36 deducted amount w.e.f. from the date of their initial engagement i.e. 1991. The Authority vide order dated 11th January 2005 by an exparte order, allowed the application and directed the petitioners to deposit with it within 30 days, an amount of Rs. 42, 31, 664/- on account of deducted wages of the respondent 2 to 36. 2. The order of the Authority dated 11th January 2005 is questioned in the writ petition in hand, on the grounds that the Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, in as much as Department of Agriculture Government of Jammu and Kashmir has not been notified by the (Sic) Government as an established to be included within the definition of "Industry or establishment" under Section 2(ii) of the Act, and that the Act, thus is not applicable to the respondent. It is pleaded, that the respondents 2 to 36 were engaged on consolidated wages @ Rs. 300 and 500 per month, have been working as such and that the impugned order has been passed in "derogation of the Act". The petitioners also question jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain a time barred claim and direct payment of deducted wages not permitted under the Act. 3. The petitioners on the strength of grounds set out in the petition seek a writ of certiorari quashing order of Authority dated 11.01.2005 impugned in the petition as also the orders made subsequent thereto by the Executing Court. 4. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that as the petitioners have failed to question the impugned order in an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, and not made use of appropriate efficacious statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction to question the impugned order. 4. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that as the petitioners have failed to question the impugned order in an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, and not made use of appropriate efficacious statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction to question the impugned order. It is insisted that the Authority while passing the impugned order has acted within its jurisdiction delineated in Section 15(3) of the Act, and passed the order on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence brought on record, and thus the order is beyond challenge, more so in a petition under Section 226 Constitution of India. The writ petition to challenge the impugned order, it is pleaded, would be maintainable only when impugned order is found to be without jurisdiction. The respondents 2 to 36 insist that they have been working as daily wagers in the Department of Agriculture for more than 16 years and the wages to which they are entitled have been delayed/deducted due to non-availability of funds. It is refuted, that in absence of a notification declaring the Department of Agriculture as an establishment in terms of Section 2(ii) of the Act, machinery available under the Act, cannot be pressed into service by the respondents 2 to 36 to recover delayed or illegally deducted wages. The respondents 2 to 36 plead, that the Department of Agriculture having regard to its activities falls within "Industry or other establishment" as defined under Section 2 (ii) (f) of the Act, and that the Act, in terms of Section 1 (4) of the Act was applicable to the payment of the wages to the respondents 2 to 36 as also their similarly situated employees of the Department. The respondents deny that they were engaged on consolidated basis at the rate of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/ - per month and not daily wagers. Repelling the contention that the Authority entertained as time barred claim of the respondents 2 to 36, it is pleaded, that the Authority in exercise of powers under Section 9 (c) of the Act condoned the delay on justified cause pleaded by the respondents. 5. I have gone through the pleadings as also the order of the Authority impugned in the petition and have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a piece of Social Legislation. 5. I have gone through the pleadings as also the order of the Authority impugned in the petition and have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a piece of Social Legislation. The delayed payment of wages and imposition of arbitrary and discriminatory fines, prior to the enactment of the Act, were two hardships adversely affecting the working class. The employers could enforce a long interval between the date the wages became due and the date the wages were paid and even make deductions on flimsy grounds from the wages paid after inordinate delay. The delay and deductions were used as a tool to prevent the workers, shift to better jobs and to raise voice against violation of their rights. The Payments of Wages Act, is a legislative effort to save a certain class of persons, employed in Industry, or such other establishment from aforesaid machinations of employers and ensure that the workers get their wages within a reasonable time after these become due and that an employer does not resort to deductions in the name of fines or other such excuses on flimsy and unjustifiable grounds. 7. Section 1 (4) of the Act indentifies the beneficiaries of the Act. It is only persons employed in any factory, or upon any railway directly or through a contractor or in an industrial "establishment" defined in Section 2 (ii) to whom the Act is applicable Section 2 (vi) defines wages. The definition assumes significance as what the law insists on is payment of ''wages" as defined under Section 2(vi) within the prescribed time and prohibits any delay in payment and unauthorized deduction from such "wages". Section 3 and 5, fix the responsibility of payments of wages and prescribe the period within which the wages are to be paid. Section 7 prohibits deductions of any kind from the wages except those permitted under the Act. Section 8 lays down the conditions and limits subject to which fines may be imposed and the procedure for imposing such fines. Sections 9 to 13 lay down the limits of deductions on account of absence from duty, damage or loss to the employer, house accommodation and other amenities, advance wages paid to the worker and payments to insurance Schemes etc. Sections 9 to 13 lay down the limits of deductions on account of absence from duty, damage or loss to the employer, house accommodation and other amenities, advance wages paid to the worker and payments to insurance Schemes etc. Section 15 makes Provision for appointment of the Authority to hear and decide in any specified area, claims of illegal deductions from the wages or delay in wages of employees employed in the area. 8. Section 15 of the Act, empowers the Government to appoint any one of the officers mentioned in Section 15 (1) (a to e) as the Authority to hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of wages of the persons employed in a factory or other establishment as defined in Section 2(ii) of the Act. The Authority so constituted is authorized to "hear and decide" for any specified area, claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of wages of the persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters "incidental to such claims". 9. Having taken an overview of the Scheme envisages under the Act, and a closer look at Sections 2(iv) and Section 15, the focus is to be shift to the case set up in the writ petition. 10. The petitioners inter alia contend that the respondents 2 to 36 were engaged on consolidated basis on payment @ Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/- per month and that the Authority has in the impugned order treated the respondents 2 to 36 at par with the "daily rated workers" engaged in different Departments of the State Government and passed the order on the basis of remuneration payable to the daily rated workers of other Government Departments. The petitioners insist that the award has been passed "in derogation of the Act". 11. The case set up is refuted by the respondent No. 2 to 36 on the grounds set out in their Counter Affidavit. 12. To understand the controversy in right perspective it is necessary to go to the back-ground discernible from pleadings, in which the present petition is filed. The State Government in the year 1994 decided to regularize services of its daily rated workers. The State Government accordingly came out with Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work charged Employees (Regularization) rules, 1994, notified vide SRO 64 of 1994. The State Government in the year 1994 decided to regularize services of its daily rated workers. The State Government accordingly came out with Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work charged Employees (Regularization) rules, 1994, notified vide SRO 64 of 1994. In terms of SRO 64 of 1994 all the "daily rated workers" who had completed seven years continued, uninterrupted term as such, before prescribed cut off date were to be regularized in accordance with rules made there-under. The respondents 2 to 36 claiming to be entitled to regularization of their service under SRO 64 of 1994 filed a writ petition titled Nisar Ahmad Chesti and Others Vs. State and others registered as SWP No. 89 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.02.2004 with the direction to the respondents therein to accord consideration to the regularization of the respondents 2 to 36 under SRO 64 of 1994. The respondents in compliance of writ Court order considered the case of respondents 2 to 36 for regularization and on such consideration vide order No. Agri/Ls/05-06/477 dated 07.10.2005 rejected the claim set up on the ground that as they were engaged on consolidated basis® Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- per month, and not as daily rated workers, they did not fall within the ambit of SRO 64 of 1994 and thus were not entitled to regularization of their service. The respondents 2 to 36 aggrieved with the aforementioned order filed one more writ petition registered as SWP No. 523/2006 and the writ petition was disposed of on 09.05.2007 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the mater. The respondents vide order No. Agri/LS/07-08/530-532 dated 17.09.2007 once again rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization. 13. The case set up by the respondents 2 to 36 before the Authority under the Act, was that they had not been paid the remuneration as was payable to the "daily rated workers" and that the difference between the wages actually paid to them and the wages to which they were entitled as "daily rated workers" amounted to deduction in terms of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The respondents 2 to 36 contended that the "deduction" made was prohibited under Section 7 of the Act. The respondents 2 to 36 contended that the "deduction" made was prohibited under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioners in opposition to the applications made by respondents 2 to 36 before the Authority, raised a specific plea that the respondents 2 to 36 were engaged on "consolidated wages" and that there was no deduction from the wages as claimed in the application filed by the respondents 2 to 36. The averment made by the petitioners in their objections to the application prompted the Authority to frame following specific issue; "Whether applicants have been engaged on consolidated wages against any Government instructions (OPP/ OPD)" 14. The Authority proceeded to decide above issue in favour of respondents 2 to 36 and declared the respondents 2 to 36 having same status as that of "daily rated workers" of other Government Departments and entitled to the emoluments as were payable to the "daily rated workers" of other Government Departments. The Authority thereafter proceeded to work out "balance due" to the respondents 2 to 36 as Rs. 42, 31, 664/-from the year 1991 to 31st December 2003 and directed the petitioners to deposit the said amount within 30 days. 15. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Authority instead of determining whether any deduction was made from the wages as defined under Section 2 (vi) of the Act in violation of the Act, embarked on an exercise to determine the status of the respondents 2 to 36. The Authority after referring to the nature of the duties performed by the respondents 2 to 36 held that the duty performed "justifies their nature of employment analogous to other Government daily wagers". The Authority thereafter proceeded to observe that "wages of applicants are required to be paid in accordance with the Government orders issued from time to time which apply to all category of daily rated workers in all the Government Departments" and that "there cannot be any discrimination between daily wagers of different Departments and daily rated workers of the non-applicant Department". The exercise under-taken by the Authority to declare the status of the respondents 2 to 36 and the conclusions arrived at, are beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 of the Act. The exercise under-taken by the Authority to declare the status of the respondents 2 to 36 and the conclusions arrived at, are beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 of the Act. The Authority as is evident from the Scheme of the Act, mapped out above has to see whether any part of the wages of the applicant has been illegally deducted or the payment of wages delayed in violation of the provisions of the Act, and not to redraw terms of engagement or to rewrite the service contract between a worker and his employer. It does not fall within jurisdiction and powers of the Authority to find out the wages that ought to have been paid to an applicant because of a claimed status and declare status of the applicant by making comparison with the status of workers in other Departments. The Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of law and fact. A question like one raised before the Authority can not be characterized as incidental to the claim of wages and thus to be dealt with by the Authority. The respondents 2 to 36 may have a grievance that they are being discriminated or may have a claim that they should be treated at par with workers in other Departments but the Act, does not contemplate such a matter to be agitated before the Authority under the Act. The respondents 2 to 36 can not make use of Section 15 of the Act, to lay claim to a status and the benefits and amenities attached to such a status and on the basis of an order of the Authority (as they appear to have been able to do in present case) claim such a status and future prospects that may come their way because of the status so declared by the Authority. The respondents 2 to 36 projected their case before High Court in SWP No. 89/2004 and other writ petitions, left the mater half way feeling contended with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the respondents 2 to 36 for regularization in accordance with Rules. The respondents 2 to 36 projected their case before High Court in SWP No. 89/2004 and other writ petitions, left the mater half way feeling contended with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the respondents 2 to 36 for regularization in accordance with Rules. The respondents 2 to 36 after their claim on consideration is rejected, or before a decision is taken by the Competent Authority, can not make use of Section 15 of Act to get what they were not able to get from the writ court. 16. To sum up the Authority has traveled beyond its jurisdiction and dealt with the matter neither pertaining nor incidental to the claims put forth by the respondents, it needs no emphasis that though the Authority while dealing with a matter arising out of deduction or delay in payment of wages may deal with a questions incidental to said matters. However, under the disguise of deciding "incidental maters" the limited jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act, is not be unreasonably or unduly extended so as to include jurisdiction to virtually change the nature of employment. It is well settled law that a writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India would be maintainable not only in case of illegal exercise of jurisdiction by Tribunal but also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. In the present case as already observed the Authority while making the impugned order has traveled beyond its powers and out-stepped jurisdiction vested under Section 15 of the Act. 17. Failure on part of the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, against the impugned order cannot because of jurisdictional error on part of the Authority come in their way to question the order in a writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India and a certiorari would lie to seek quashment of the order. 18. For the reasons discussed above the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 dated 11.01.2005 in Ghulam Nabi Gujri & Ors. Vs. Director of Agriculture, Kashmir Division and anr impugned herein is quashed. 19. Needless to mention, that the instant judgment shall not stand in the way of respondents 2 to 36 to seek redressal of their grievances, if any, by having recourse to remedy available under law.