ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sodhi Textiles and Home Furnishing (P) Limited challenging order dated 30.10.2012 passed by Authorised Officer, under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Prescribed Authority') whereby suit filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 9,000/-, thus total amount of Rs. 18,000/- within 30 days of the order. Petitioner has been further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936(for short 'the Act') stating therein that he was appointed as Assistant Salesman in the institution of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was getting monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-, but the petitioner deducted salary for the period from 01.12.2010 to 31.01.2011 and terminated his services on 05.03.2011. After service of notice, the petitioner engaged an advocate, but the Prescribed Authority without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner initiated ex-parte proceedings and vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.2012 allowed the application of Respondent No. 1 in the terms indicated herein above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Prescribed Authority has gone beyond its jurisdiction while passing impugned judgment. The petitioner has already paid entire salary to Respondent No. 1, therefore, provisions of the Act are not attracted. Penalty imposed by the Prescribed Authority is beyond its jurisdiction prescribed by the Act. It is argued that it has passed the impugned judgment without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, due to which resignation of the Respondent No. 1 could not be produced before the Prescribed Authority to prove that Respondent No. 1 himself left the industrial establishment of the petitioner on his own free will and had already received salary up to 05.03.2011. 4. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the Prescribed Authority has observed that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file reply to the application of Respondent No. 1, but despite that no response was filed by the petitioner and opportunity to file reply was closed by the Prescribed Authority. 4. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the Prescribed Authority has observed that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file reply to the application of Respondent No. 1, but despite that no response was filed by the petitioner and opportunity to file reply was closed by the Prescribed Authority. It has bee further observed that Respondent No. 1 filed his affidavit in evidence, but despite grant of several opportunities, cross-examination of Respondent No. 1 was not done by the petitioner, therefore, its opportunity to cross-examine Respondent No. 1 was also closed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not granted opportunity to contest the matter effectively. Since no reply was filed by the petitioner, therefore, there was no option left with the Prescribed Authority, but to allow the application of Respondent No. 1. 5. Besides, Section 17 of the Act provides for remedy of filing of appeal against the impugned order within 30 days from the date of passing of the order, but instead of availing that remedy, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court on 03.12.2015, perhaps, to cover the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Therefore, present writ petition cannot be directly maintained before this Court. 6. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority. Writ petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.