JUDGMENT : A. OWP No. 478/2015 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of award dated 22.02.2014 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch, whereby award under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to the tune of Rs. 94,39,506/- came to be awarded in favour of respondents 3 to 32 herein and against the petitioner herein. Petitioner is also seeking quashing of order dated 31.01.2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein for setting aside the award dated 22.02.2014 came to be dismissed. 2. The facts-in-brief, as gathered from the writ file, are that Respondents 3 to 32 being labourers and masons by profession were engaged by Respondent No. 33-Contractor for execution of earth work from January 2008 to 20th July 2012 at Mughal Road, which was allotted to Respondent No. 33-Contractor by the petitioner herein, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Since they were not made the wages as per the Muster Roll and Calculation Sheet, they filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch against the petitioner and Respondent No. 33 herein for payment of wages under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act. And, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch, vide award dated 22.02.2014, impugned herein, passed an award to the tune of Rs. 94,39,506/- in favour of respondents 3 to 32 and against the petitioner herein. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner herein filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch seeking quashing of order dated 22.02.2014, however, the same too came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2015. Hence, the present petition on behalf of petitioner-Hindustan Construction Company. 3. It is averred by the petitioner-Company that respondents 3 to 32 were never employed by it; rather they were employed by Respondent No. 33 herein. It is further averred that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 26,94,842/- as full and final payment to Respondent No. 33 for the work-in-question and, in lieu of the same, Respondent No. 33 had also executed receipt dated 20.03.2013, besides also executed an undertaking of No Claim Certificate in favour of petitioner, which the petitioner in turn submitted the same before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch vide letter dated 06.06.2013. 26,94,842/- as full and final payment to Respondent No. 33 for the work-in-question and, in lieu of the same, Respondent No. 33 had also executed receipt dated 20.03.2013, besides also executed an undertaking of No Claim Certificate in favour of petitioner, which the petitioner in turn submitted the same before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch vide letter dated 06.06.2013. However, it is averred that despite submission of these documents showing that the petitioner has already satisfied its liability and the same has also been acknowledged by Respondent No. 33, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Respondent No. 2 herein, passed the award, impugned herein, against the petitioner herein with a direction to it to pay the awarded amount within a period of 30 days from the date of award. 4. During pendency of writ petition, on 26th May 2015 an application was filed by as many as 60 persons, being MP No. 01/2015, seeking their impleadment as party respondents in writ petition. The application came up for consideration on 30th May 2016. Though learned counsel for petitioner sought time to file objections, however, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 32 stated that determination of application (MP No. 01/2015) could await the result of preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability of writ petition on the ground that instead of availing equally efficacious remedy, the petitioner-Company has filed the present writ petition only to avoid remedy of filing appeal, as in that case the petitioner-Company is required to deposit awarded amount before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for respondents, thus, pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary objection alone. 5. Given the submission of learned counsel for respondent, the writ petition along with connected matter was directed to be listed for consideration on the point of maintainability. In that view of matter, this order will decide the fate of writ petition on hand as to whether it is maintainable or not. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 7. The instant case orbits around and relates to payment of wages to labourers. In that view of matter, this order will decide the fate of writ petition on hand as to whether it is maintainable or not. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 7. The instant case orbits around and relates to payment of wages to labourers. Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, if any deduction is made from the wages of an employed person or any payment of wages is delayed, such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official of registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf or any Inspector under the act or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint -- (a) any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; or (b) any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as, (i) Regional Labour Commissioner; or (ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two years' experience; or (c) any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two years' experience; or (d) a presiding officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or under any corresponding law relating to the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State; or (e) any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or a Judicial Magistrate, as the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims: Provided that where the appropriate Government considers it necessary so to do, it may appoint more than one authority for any specified area and may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them under this Act. of Section 15, can apply to such authority for a direction under sub section (3) of Section 15. of Section 15, can apply to such authority for a direction under sub section (3) of Section 15. If an application under sub-section (2), (2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3) : Provided that every such application shall be presented within twelve months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be : Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of twelve months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. is entertained, the authority, under Section 15(3), (3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under Section 3, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and, after such further enquiry, if any, as may be necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person is liable under this Act, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding three thousand rupees but not less than one thousand five hundred rupees in the latter, and even if the amount deducted or delayed wages are paid before the disposal of the application, direct the payment of such compensation, as the authority may think fit, not exceeding two thousand rupees : Provided that a claim under this Act shall be disposed of as far as practicable within a period of three months from the date of registration of the claim by the authority: Provided further that the period of three months may be extended if both parties to the dispute agree for any bona fide reason to be recorded by the authority that the said period of three months may be extended to such period as may be necessary to dispose of the application in a just manner : Provided also that no direction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed wages if the authority is satisfied that the delay was due to -- (a) a bona fide error or bona fide dispute as to the amount payable to the employed person; or (b) the occurrence of an emergency, or the existence of exceptional circumstances, the person responsible for the payment of the wages was unable, in spite of exercising reasonable diligence; or (c) the failure of the employed person to apply for or accept payment. of the Act, after hearing parties, may direct refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages together with payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit. 8. of the Act, after hearing parties, may direct refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages together with payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit. 8. If the employer or for that matter other person responsible for the payment of wages is aggrieved, he in terms of Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has efficacious alternate remedy available. 9. In the present case, petitioner has knocked at portals of this Court with writ petition on hand, knowledgeably that in the event he avails, what the Statute provides and envisages, the remedy available by filing Appeal under Section 17 of the Act, he is to accompany with the memorandum of Appeal a certificate of the authority to the effect that he has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against. Suffice it to say that it is the statutory obligation and duty that is cast upon employer, including present petitioner, to follow that includes if employer is aggrieved of order/award of the authority, he is to file Appeal, which is efficacious alternative remedy made available to him by the Act. What is law of the land laid down by the Apex Court and High Court on alternate remedy is discussed below. 10. The Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum. & Anr. 2010 (7) Supreme 1059 , has held that the parties have to necessarily avail remedy of approaching Wakf Tribunal and not civil court or High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A question arose in Bihar State Electricity Board and another v. Ramdeo Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 3423 , as to whether a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, can challenge the order of dismissal by filing a suit and pray for his reinstatement, the Supreme Court held that if a dispute was an industrial dispute relating to enforcement of right or obligation created under the Act, the only remedy available is to get the same adjudicated under the Act i.e. by raising industrial dispute. In the case the Supreme Court held that the suit filed by workmen, questioning dismissal and seeking reinstatement, was not maintainable. 11. In the case the Supreme Court held that the suit filed by workmen, questioning dismissal and seeking reinstatement, was not maintainable. 11. Entertaining writ petition in spite of availability of alternative remedy under the Statute by the High Court has not been appreciated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court so held in Transport and Dock Workers Union and others v. Mumbai Port Trust and another 2011 (2) SCC 575 by opining : "14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant. In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellants by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles." 12. Again the Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others 2011 (2) SCC 782 has held that High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to appellants under the Statute and that it is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. Reference in this regard was also made to decisions in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524 ; Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 ; and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories (2006) 9 SCC 252 . 13. In GAIL (India) Ltd. v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2014) 1 SCC 329 , the Supreme Court held that if remedy of arbitration was available, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and should have relegated respondent in the said case to avail remedy of arbitration and arbitral tribunal could have decided the complicated dispute between the parties by availing the services of the experts. Similar views were made by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and another AIR 2015 SC 2465 . 14. The remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and discretionary. The exercise of discretion to issue a writ is a matter of granting equitable relief. It is a remedy in equity. Ordinarily, if a party does not resort to the remedy provided by law and straightway approaches the High Court to question the action of authority in disregard of prescribed procedure, that stands on a different footing. In such circumstances writ petition deserves dismissal. These are again the observations of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 10 SCC 767 . Be that as it may, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation and the High Court is not to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the Statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. 15. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and the discretion is not to be ordinarily exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the person approaching the High Court with writ petition. In the present case a clear alternative remedy is available to petitioner and hence entertainment of writ petition on hand does not arise at all. This Court cannot adopt an over liberal approach unnecessarily to add the load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. Writ petition, for all what has been discussed herein above, is not maintainable. 16. In the light of above settled proposition of law as declared by the Supreme Court, and in view of efficacious alternative remedy available under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to avail alternate remedy of filing appeal, if any, available under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The intervening period of delay shall not come in the way of petitioner, if the petitioner chooses to approach before the appropriate forum. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions, accordingly, stands disposed of. However, petitioner is at liberty to avail alternate remedy of filing appeal, if any, available under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The intervening period of delay shall not come in the way of petitioner, if the petitioner chooses to approach before the appropriate forum. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions, accordingly, stands disposed of. B. OWP No. 681/2013 17. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner herein (respondent No. 33 in OWP No. 478/2015) is seeking a direction to respondents including the Hindustan Construction Company to release the admitted amount of Rs. 1,21,34,450/- in terms of order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch. 18. In view of what has been discussed above and the fact that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ petition in hand is dismissed along with connected miscellaneous petitions, if any. Let the writ petitioner as well avail the remedy as available under the Payment of Wages Act and the intervening period of delay shall not come in the way of petitioner, if he chooses to approach before the appropriate forum. 19. Registry is directed to return the record to the learned GA against proper receipt.