JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. During the pendency of the petition, filed by the respondents/employees, of, the petitioner company, and, constituted under the provisions of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (i) the employees, preferred an application, cast, under the provisions of Section 17A of the Payment of Wages Act, before the learned Commissioner, and, thereupon an affirmative order stood, hence pronounced, (ii) the petitioner/company being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has strived, to, through the instant petition, beget its reversal. 2. The validity of availment of the remedy, prescribed under Section 17A of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- "17A. conditional attachment of property of employer or other person responsible for payment of wages.- (1) Where at any time after an application has been made under sub-section (2) of section 15 the authority, or where at any time after an appeal has been filed under section 17 by an employed person or [any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf or any Inspector under this Act or any other person permitted by the authority to make an application under sub-section (2) of section 15] the Curt referred to in that section, is satisfied that the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3 is likely to evade payment of any amount that may be directed to be paid under section 15 or section 17, the authority or the Court, as the case may be, except in cases where the authority or Court is of opinion that the ends of justice would be defeated by the delay, after giving the employer or other person an opportunity of being heard, may direct the attachment of so much of the property of the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages as is, in the opinion of the authority or Court, sufficient to satisfy the amount which may be payable under the direction. (2) The provisions of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to attachment before judgment under that code shall, so far as may be, apply to any order for attachment under sub-section (1)." (i) would arise only, upon, the material placed on record, by the workmen, hence exemplifying qua their being, an, imminent likelihood of the employer company, evading payment of the espoused amount, upon, its may be being directed to be released, vis--vis, the workmen, upon, an application, cast, before the learned Commissioner, under the provisions of Section 15 or Section 17, of, the Act. 3. For determining whether, the, afore condition standing satisfied, and, thereupon the order impugned before this court acquiring validity, it is imperative to allude, vis--vis, the contest made, by the petitioner company, qua an application, cast, under the provisions of Section 15, and, Section 17 of the Act, as stood, preferred before the learned Commissioner. On the afore application, the workmen had espoused, qua, there legitimate salary(s) being withheld by the employer. The afore averment was contested by the petitioner company, through, its meteing a reply thereto, and, therein, it, contended qua the production at manufacturing unit, of, the company being stalled, owing to an illegal strike, and, sit down of the employees. The afore contention was required to be, prima facie satisfied, by concurrent therewith material hence standing placed on record. A perusal of the record, does, prima facie disclose, qua, the afore contention may not be, at this stage hence deriving, any support from any material, in consonance therewith, (a) yet, when the counsel for the petitioner company, submits before this Court, that, the main petition is yet to be listed, for adduction of evidence, by the petitioner company, (b) thereupon when, upon, the afore factum probandum, evidence remains yet unadduced, (c) thereupon, when the requisite material rather, for, ensuring satiation being meted, vis--vis, the afore ingredients, is, yet to be adduced, and, is obviously not existing before the learned Commissioner, (d) thereupon it is un-befitting for the latter, to proceed, to, order for the petitioner company, furnishing surety, equivalent, to the, purportedly illegally withheld salary, of, the workmen. Even otherwise, the afore direction is beyond the ambit of law, and, is accordingly quashed and set aside. 4. In view of the above observations, the instant petition is allowed. Even otherwise, the afore direction is beyond the ambit of law, and, is accordingly quashed and set aside. 4. In view of the above observations, the instant petition is allowed. However, the learned Commissioner is directed, to, expeditiously conclude the trial of petition No.2/2 of 2016. All pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned Commissioner shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove.