ORDER : Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the case being P.W. Case No. 4/2017 pending before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur is not maintainable under the scheme and object of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the said Act’]. The petitioner has further prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.06.2017 passed in P.W. Case No. 4/2017 whereby, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur has admitted the case and issued notice in Form-E as per the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the said Rules’] for final disposal of the application. 3. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner is claiming that it is a Company suffering from financial crunch due to which it had also made an application before the Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for seeking permission under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for closure of the Company, but the same was refused vide order dated 27.10.2016 against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(L) No. 6690/2016 which is still pending. It has further been claimed by the petitioner that due to bad financial condition of the Company, the wages of the employees have not been paid since October, 2016. Moreover, the facilities and subsidies borne by the petitioner were also withdrawn. The workmen of the Company had preferred several representations before the Inspector of factories with regard to delayed payment of wages under the said Act, who had directed the petitioner to make payment of the wages. However, the respondent-workman filed an application being P.W. Case No. 4/2017 before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has unlawfully deducted the wages of the respondent-workman from October, 2016 to May, 2017 amounting to Rs.1,28,053/-, which was payable on month to month basis by the 10th day of the following month. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 16.06.2017, admitted the case and issued notice to the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned Sr. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 16.06.2017, admitted the case and issued notice to the petitioner, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority under Section 15 of the said Act has to apply its mind to come to a prima facie finding as to the nature of violation i.e. whether the claim is for delayed payment or for unlawful deduction and an appropriate finding has to be recorded while entertaining a claim as per the procedure laid down in terms with Rule 7 read with Rule 8 of the said Rules. However, in the present case, the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 simply admitted the application filed by the respondent under Section 15(2) of the said Act and issued notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the contents of the notice issued vide letter No. 126/2017 dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) clearly indicate that the case has been fixed on 15.07.2017 for final disposal. It is further submitted that since the case has been fixed for final disposal on 15.07.2017, the petitioner has reasons to believe that it will not be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2017. 5. After hearing the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the learned Labour Court after receipt of the application filed by the respondent under Section 15(2) of the said Act, heard the case on admission and, accordingly, issued notice to the petitioner in Form-E of the said Rules. The writ petition filed by the petitioner appears to be premature, as final adjudication is yet to be done by the learned Labour Court, as mandated under Section 15(3) of the said Act. It is well settled that normally the writ petitions filed against the show cause notices issued by the authorities, should not be entertained, unless the same are without jurisdiction. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Director & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 has held thus: “5. It is well settled that normally the writ petitions filed against the show cause notices issued by the authorities, should not be entertained, unless the same are without jurisdiction. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Director & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 has held thus: “5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the showcause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted.” 7. The main submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is that since the application was filed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur for unlawful deduction of the wages and not for delayed payment of the wages, the learned Labour Court should not have issued notice to the petitioner without appreciating the difference between both the claims. counsel for the petitioner is that since the application was filed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur for unlawful deduction of the wages and not for delayed payment of the wages, the learned Labour Court should not have issued notice to the petitioner without appreciating the difference between both the claims. It has also been submitted that the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur is in hurry to dispose of the application of the respondent filed under Section 15(2) of the said Act, which is evident from the fact that the case has been fixed for final disposal on 15.07.2017. 8. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has no substance, as Section 15(2) of the said Act does not make any distinction between the application made for wrongful deduction of the wages and the delayed payment of the wages. It is upon the competent authority to take a decision under Section 15(3) of the said Act and the said stage has not yet reached. 9. On plain reading of Section 15(3) of the said Act, it is evident that a detail procedure of hearing has been delineated therein. So far as the apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Labour Court is in hurry, as the notice dated 17.06.2017 indicates that the case shall be disposed of on the next date of hearing i.e. 15.07.2017, the same is also unfounded. In fact, the notice dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure-4) has been issued under the proforma of Form-E prescribed in the said Rules itself. The proforma of Form-E of the said Rules is reproduced hereunder for the purpose of clarity: Form E NOTICE FOR THE DISPOSSAL OF APPLICATION To Whereas under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936) a claim against you has been presented to me in the application of which a copy is enclosed, you are hereby called upon to appear before me either in person or by any person duly instructed, and able to answer all material questions relating to the application, or who shall be accompanied by some person able to answer all material questions relating to the application, or who shall be accompanied by some person able to answer all such questions, on the ……… day of ……… 20 ……… at …….. O’clock in the forenoon/afternoon to answer the claim; and as the day fixed for your appearance is appointed for the final disposal of the application, you must be prepared to produce on that day all the witnesses upon whose evidence, and the documents upon which you intend to rely in support of your defence. Take notice that, in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned, the application will be heard and determined in your absence. Given under my hand and seal, this day of …… 20 ...… Seal …………… Authority 10. On comparison, it is evident that the aforesaid proforma Form-E prescribed in the said Rules and the contents of the notice dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure-4) issued to the petitioner are same. The wording “…… and as the day fixed for your appearance is appointed for the final disposal of the application …..” is the part of proforma Form-E (notice) to be issued to the employer under Section 15(2) of the said Act. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Labour Court is in hurry for disposing of the case, has no substance. It has already been observed hereinbefore that Section 15(3) of the said Act itself delineates the procedure for disposal of the application filed under Section 15(2) of the said Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and judicial pronouncement, I find no reason to interfere with the proceeding continuing in the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make factual and legal contentions before the learned Labour Court. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 13. Consequently, I.A. No. 5495/2017 also stands disposed of.