JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J - The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 24.9.2008 passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 6 th February, 2009 holding that the appellant had a remedy of appeal. 2. The impugned order over-looks the well settled principle of law that where an order passed by an authority is without jurisdiction writ remedy can be availed of and specially where the appellate remedy is onerous; requiring deposit of the determined amount. 3. The alleged workman claimed before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act that they were agricultural labour and had performed over time duties on the land of the appellant and were denied over time charges. 4. The Authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the claim for the reason as per sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act it applies to employment in factory, railways and such industrial and other establishments which are specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of Section 2 and for such establishments where by a notification contemplated by sub-clause (h) of clause (ii) of Section 2 an establishment is included. 5. The employment by agriculturist of labour is not covered by any of clauses of Section 2 of the Act and there is no notification contemplated by sub-clause (h) of clause (ii) of Section 2. 6. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 6 th February, 2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order dated 24.9.2008 (Annex.5 to the writ petition) passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is set aside.