ORDER
V.K. Gupta, J.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution, the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of Prohibition restraining Respondent No. 1, i.e. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court from proceeding any further with the consideration of hearing of the appeal preferred before him by Respondent No. 2, J. & K State Forest Corporation against an Award passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Srinagar on December 23, 1992. The admitted facts are that the petitioner, Fida Hussain approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act ('Authority' for short) under Subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Act. It is absolutely unnecessary to go into the details of the claims of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the Authority passed an Award on December 23, 1992 whereby it granted an amount of Rs. 1,24,164/- in favour of the petitioner with costs assessed at Rs. 1000/-.
2. Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and the matters relating to the penalty for malicious or vexatious claims. Under this Section jurisdiction has been vested with the Authority to pass Award and issue directions. Under Section 17 of the Act, a provision has been made for filing appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part, an application made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 or against a direction made under Subsection (2) or under Sub-section (4). The Court of District Judge or the Small Cause Court, as the case may be, is the forum prescribed for filing such an appeal. The period of limitation prescribed is thirty days from the date of passing of the order proposed to be appealed against.
3. Whether the Award in question dated December 23, 1992 was a good Award or a bad Award, whether it was in violation of the provisions of Payment of Wages Act or any other law on the subject, the remedy open to the person aggrieved of the Award, namely, Respondent No. 2, was by way of an appeal in terms of Section 17 of the Act, as noted above. The matter is as simple as that.
4. Rather than taking recourse to the method and remedy of filing appeal before the District Judge concerned, Respondent No. 2. chose a very, very unusual method of filing the appeal against the award in question before the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Respondent No. 1 herein. Surprisingly enough the appeal was entertained by respondent No. 1 and an order of issuance of notice to the opposite party in the appeal came to be passed. It is against the filing of the aforesaid appeal, issuance of notice and its pendency in the Labour Court that the petitioner has sought this Court's intervention in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
5. In normal course, in ordinary case, this Court does not entertain such like petitions and insists upon the petitioner to go back to the forum concerned, plead lack of jurisdiction and get a finding. Objections relating to the lack of jurisdiction etc. are always best left to be raised before the concerned Court itself and it is very, very unusual for a party to, without raising objections in the concerned Court, approach a superior Court with a complaint that the matter in the concerned Court has wrongly been filed. Even after the party wrongly approaches the superior Court, the superior Court, in normal course, sends that party back to the original Court with direction that the objection be raised there only. The purpose always is to ensure that the Court concerned returns a finding on the merits of the controversy. The reason is that each Court is vested with the power and jurisdiction to decide all points in controversy, including those relating to its own jurisdiction. I am, however, not adopting that course in this case and for a very simple reason. One reason is that the outcome of any proposed objection to jurisdiction is already known to me. The other is that sending back petitioner to the Labour Court will be an empty formality because of inherent lack of jurisdiction of that Court in entertaining the appeal. The third, and the most important, is theabsolute illegal act, totally unwarranted of filing the appeal in that Court by Respondent No. 2.
6. At the out-set, I requested Shri B.M. Sadeg, AAG to refer me to any provision of law in this country whereby an Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, i.e. Respondent No. 1, has the appellate jurisdiction of any kind. The purpose of making the enquiry was to know as to whether respondent No. 1 is at all an Appellate Court or not, under any law for the time being in force. The question of appeals lying before him against the Awards passed under the Payment of Wages Act was altogether different and a subsequent matter. The first and the foremost question to be decided was this: does the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act have any Appellate Jurisdiction at all? This was the only question which was put to Mr. Sadeq because, understandably I thought that the person filing the appeal should know the law under which the appeal was being filed and the legal provision which vests that forum with Appellate Jurisdiction. As far as a glance through the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act shows, an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court constituted under that Act, is only a Court of original jurisdiction and it is not vested with any powers of any Appellate Court in respect of any matter, either under the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law for the time being in force.
7. As noticed, all Awards under the Payment of Wages Act are subject to appeals to be filed before District Judge or the Court of Small Causes concerned, as the case may be. There is no other forum where such appeals can lie. As also noticed, all questions arising under the Award in dispute, whether on the merits of the claim, the very maintainability of an application for claims, the jurisdiction of the authority to pass the Award and so on and so forth, are such questions which can very effectively be dealt with by the Appellate Court prescribed under Section 17 of the Act.
8. The next question is, why did Respondent No. 1 entertain the appeal? While the appeal was being presented to him, did it not occur to him that he is not an Appellate Authority under any law, muchless the Payment of Wages Act? Did he think that he was only a Post Office where an appeal could be posted for being sorted out later on? Why did he not apply his mind to the very basic requirement of law, viz. his very jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court in any matter and his jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court with respect to an Award under the Payment of Wages Act. In light of above, Respondent No. 1 has acted in a manner which is not wholly becoming of a Senior Judicial Officer. In my view the act of Respondent No. 1 in entertaining the appeal does call for further enquiry on the administrative side of this Court as well.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition, quash and set aside all proceedings pending before Respondent No. 1 and by issuance of writ of Certiorari, dismiss the appeal pending before him and filed by Respondent No. 2. I am told that while entertaining the appeal, Respondent No. 1 had issued interim directions. All these directions shall stand vacated forthwith and immediately.
10. The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by Respondent No. 2 to the petitioner within two weeks from today. If the costs are not paid, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the costs by execution of this order as a decree. I am not oblivious of the high, rather exceptionally high amount of costs being awarded in favour of the petitioner. In fact, on the contrary I am quite conscious about it. I wish to place it on record that I am purposely and deliberately awarding exemplary costs in this case, because of the peculiar and exceptional circumstances in which a most unwarranted act, totally unexplained as well, of filing an appeal by a State Government functionary was committed which, perhaps, has a few parallels.
11. The Additional Registrar shall send a copy of this judgment along with the case file to the Registrar of this Court immediately. The Registrar shall call upon the Presiding Officer (at the relevant time) of the Court of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to send his explanation / comments with regard to the observations made against him in this judgment. Along with the said communication, a copy of the judgment shall be enclosed. The comments / explanation received shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice along with the file of the case for appropriate directions on the administrative side.
12. All connected CMPs are disposed of accordingly.