1. Respondents 1 to 17 laid a motion before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Kashmir Division, Srinagar for payment of wages, came to be allowed vide order dated 12.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar in terms of Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, Act), came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure "C" to the writ petition) on the ground that the writ petitioners have failed to obtain the requisite certificate which is a prerequisite for filing appeal. By the medium of this writ petition the petitioners have questioned both the orders. 2. Respondents have filed reply and contested the petition on the grounds taken in the memo of reply. 3. The writ petition on the face of it is not maintainable for the reason that the writ petitioners had the efficacious remedy in terms of Section 17 of the Act by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority, but before filing appeal it was mandatory on the part of writ petitioners to deposit the awarded amount and obtain the requisite certificate in terms of Section 17 of the Act, which they have not done, thus have failed to avail the remedy available. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Director, Rural Development Department 8s others Vs. Zahida Akhter & others, LPA No. 180/2009 held that when the award is passed by the authority under the Act, the aggrieved party has the remedy available and has to work out the said remedy in the manner and procedure known to law. If the aggrieved party fails to work out the remedy strictly in terms of mandate of Section 17 of the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is apt to reproduce para 5 & 6 of the judgment herein: "5. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge, having noticed the alternate remedy available to the appellants and the appellants having failed to work out the said remedy in the manner known to law, held that the appellants cannot be permitted to challenge the original order by filing the present writ petition. 6. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge, having noticed the alternate remedy available to the appellants and the appellants having failed to work out the said remedy in the manner known to law, held that the appellants cannot be permitted to challenge the original order by filing the present writ petition. 6. Having regard to the prescription contained in Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which entitles the appellants to challenge the order of the Original Authority before the statutory Appellate Authority, namely, the District Judge, and the appellants having failed to avail the said appellate remedy by not following the prescribed condition imposed in the said Section, the appellants cannot be permitted to challenge the order of the Original Authority by preferring the writ petition." 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Western Bus Service Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner & others, LPA No. 173/2007 has held that when the aggrieved party has the remedy available, writ is not maintainable. This Court in case Jai Parkash Industries Ltd. Vs. Liyaqat Ali Tantri, 2007 (1) JKJ 465 and Executive Engineer vs. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 2007 (3) JKJ 432 has also laid down the same law. 6. In the given circumstances, this writ petition is not maintainable, dismissed as such along with all CMPs.