JUDGMENT : 1. This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 30th April, 2014 in W.P. No.4209 (W) of 2014 at the instance of the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy for challenging the order passed by the authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the appellate forum under Section 17 of the said Act. 3. Let us now consider the legality of the said order in the facts of the instant case. 4. The respondent No.7 being the General Secretary, Indian Railway Thikadar Mazdoor Congress (Kharagpur Division) representing the members of the union filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the concerned authority seeking direction upon the writ petitioner for payment of arrears wages/commission from 1st April, 2001 to 7th July, 2009 amounting to Rs. 10,06,3470/- for executing the contract job of catering under the Commercial Manager, Caterer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur. 5. Since there was delay in submitting the said application under Section 15(2) of the said Act, the applicants therein prayed for acceptance of the said application on condonation of delay. 6. As per the first proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 15 of the said Act, the concerned authority condoned the delay in submission of the said application under Section 15(2) of the said Act and thus, the application under Section 15(2) of the said Act filed by the respondent No.7 herein, was registered. 7. The said order was passed by the concerned authority on 7th April, 2013. 8. Challenging the said order passed by the concerned authority on 7th April, 2013, the appellant herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 4209(W) of 2014. The said writ petition was rejected for the reason as mentioned above. 9. Let us now consider as to how far the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge can be supported in the facts of the instant case. 10. The Learned Trial Judge held that the order passed by the concerned authority on 7th April, 2013 is an appealable order. According to His Lordship, appeal against the said order lies under Section 17 of the said Act. 10. The Learned Trial Judge held that the order passed by the concerned authority on 7th April, 2013 is an appealable order. According to His Lordship, appeal against the said order lies under Section 17 of the said Act. His Lordship thus, held that since an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal is available to the appellant for challenging the said order of the concerned authority, writ does not lie. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 11. Let us now test the provision contained in Section 17 of the said Act. 12. Section 17 of the said Act provides that an appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-section 2 of Section 15 or against a direction made under sub-section 3 or sub-section 4 of that section may be preferred, within thirty days from the date on which the order or direction was made, in the Presidency-town before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court. 13. On a plain reading of the said provision, it appears to us that only the order of dismissal of the application under sub-section 2 of Section 15 or against a direction under sub-section 3 or subsection 4 of the said Section is appealable under Section 17 of the said Act. 14. Here is the case where we find that only the delay in filing the application under Section 15(2) of the said Act has been condoned as per the second proviso added to Section 15 of the said Act. Thus, the application under Section 15(2) of the said Act has been registered only. No decision has yet been taken either for rejecting in part or as a whole the applicant's application under Section 15(2) of the said Act till date. No direction has yet been passed either under sub-section 3 or under sub-section 4 of Section 15 of the said Act by the concerned authority. 15. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that the order which was passed by the concerned authority on 13th February, 2014 condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 15(2) of the said Act, is not appealable. 16. We thus, cannot agree with the finding of the Learned Trial Judge that the order passed by the concerned authority on 13th February, 2014 is appealable and as such, writ does not lie. 17. Mr. 16. We thus, cannot agree with the finding of the Learned Trial Judge that the order passed by the concerned authority on 13th February, 2014 is appealable and as such, writ does not lie. 17. Mr. Pal, Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant submits that members of the Indian Railway Thikadar Mazdoor Congress (Kharagpur Division) for whom the application was filed by the respondent No.7 before the concerned authority under Section 15(2) of the said Act, were not employed by the writ petitioner/appellant. 18. He submits that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the writ petitioner and the members of the union represented by the respondent No.7 as its Secretary. 19. According to Mr. Pal that since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the writ petitioner and the members of the said union represented by the respondent No.7, the authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has no jurisdiction to entertain any application under Section 15(2) of the said Act at the instance of the respondent No.7. 20. He thus, invited us to quash the said proceeding. For deciding the said issue as to whether any relationship exists between the writ petitioner/appellant and the members of the union represented by the respondent No.7 as its Secretary, factual determination is necessary. This issue can well be decided by the authority before whom the said proceeding is pending provided such an issue is raised by the appellant/writ petitioner. The application under Section 15(2) of the said Act is still pending before the concerned authority. 21. As such, we dispose of this appeal by observing that in the event any objection is raised by the writ petitioner/appellant before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act challenging his competency to entertain such application under Section 15(2) of the said Act due to lack of jurisdiction, then the concerned authority will decide the said issue first before entering into the merit of the application under Section 15(2) of the said Act. 22. It is however, made clear that while disposing of this appeal, we have not decided the said issue. As such all issues including the jurisdictional issue are left open to be decided by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 23. The appeal is thus, disposed of. 24. 22. It is however, made clear that while disposing of this appeal, we have not decided the said issue. As such all issues including the jurisdictional issue are left open to be decided by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 23. The appeal is thus, disposed of. 24. In view of the disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed in the stay application. 25. The application for stay being ASTA 170 of 2014 is thus, disposed of. 26. Interim order passed in the writ petition is discharged. 27. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner immediately.