H.K. Rathod, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Sachi Mathur appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 State Authority.

According to facts narrated in petition, respondent No. 3 has terminated the services of 44 workmen on 25 July, 2009 without following due process of law. She submitted that these all workmen were permanent employees of respondent No. 3 and Bombay Industrial Relation Act (BIR Act for short) is applicable to respondent, therefore, immediately, T. Application has been filed by concerned employees challenging termination order before Labour Court, Surat, which is pending. The respondent No. 3 has closed his business activities w.e.f. 25th July, 2009 without obtaining prior permission of specified authority under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The due wages has not been paid and therefore, there is a delayed payment of wages as per Page 28 Statement produced along with petition Annexure-C Therefore, employees concerned has approached the Payment of Wages Authority under section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act. During pendency of that application, application under section 17-A is also filed by employees concerned with a prayer to attach the property or to direct the respondent No. 3-Company to maintain statics-quo and not to shift the machinery and material which are lying with respondent No. 3. The Payment of Wages Authority has passed an order on 16th September, 2009 with a direction to respondent No. 3 not to shift machinery as per Schedule-B, Item Nos. 1 to 9 mentioned along with application and directed to maintain status-quo and hearing was fixed on 16th October, 2009.

2. The present petition is filed by petitioner with a view to get sufficient protection, so, dues of workmen and their consequences benefits may not (sic) be available to employees in case if respondent No. 3 shifted the machinery or sell the property belongs to respondent No. 3.

3. Learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa relied upon two decisions of this Court i.e. Special Civil Application 2212 of 2004 decided on 5.3.2004 (Coram: Justice Jayant Patel) and another decision in case of Miscellaneous Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat 1992 (2) CLR 754 (Guj.) decided on 16th January, 1992. Relying upon these two decisions, learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa submitted that let this petition may be entertained by this Court for protecting the interest of workmen otherwise, it is very difficult to recover amount from respondent No. 3.

4. I have considered her submissions and I have scanned the records of present petition as well as I have also gone through the decisions cited by learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa. Considering the facts and circumstances of present case, I am not entertaining this petition only on the ground that alternative effective remedy is already availed by petitioner or concerned employees. The termination order is challenged under the provisions of BIR Act under section 78/79 before Labour Court, Surat and that proceeding is pending. During pendency of proceedings under the provisions of BIR Act, the Labour Court has power to pass such interim order which may consider just and proper Therefore, section 119-D of BIR Act is quoted as under:

119(D). In any proceeding before it under this Act, the Industrial Court, a Labour Court or a Wage Board may pass such interim orders as it may consider just and proper.

Therefore, similar relief can be prayed before Labour Court in proceedings where termination order is challenged by concerned employee and Labour Court is competent to pass interim order protecting the interest of concerned employees.

5. The concerned employees have also approached the Payment of Wages Authority by filing application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act During pendency of application, the concerned employees have also filed an application for attachment before judgment under section 17-A before Payment of Wages Authority at Surat The relevant section 17-A is quoted as under:

Section 17-A--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 authorised 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 Court 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 persons 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 relating to attachment before judgment under that Court shall, so far as may be, apply to any order for attachment before judgment under sub-section-1.

6. Therefore, provisions made in Code of Civil Procedure for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, the Payment of Wages Authority is having same power to pass order during pendency of application under section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, both authorities i.e. Labour Court as well as Payment of Wages Authority are having jurisdiction to pass interim order to protect the interest of workman or both authorities are competent to grant relief as prayed in present petition by petitioner. Therefore, only on that ground, this petition is not entertained by this Court and decisions which has been relied upon by learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa are not having similar facts, because, in reported decision of Division Bench in 1992 II CLR 754 (Guj.), a direct petition was filed, but, learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa submitted that before this Court, in SCA No. 2212 of 2004, some proceedings were pending before Labour Court. Even though, when alternative effective remedy is available and already availed by petitioner, according to my opinion, it is not proper to entertain this petition only on that ground, therefore, as and when necessary application is made by petitioner before Labour Court under section 119-D of BIR Act, it is directed to concerned Labour Court, Surat to pass order immediately as required to be passed under section 119-D of BIR Act in accordance with law and also similarly, if petitioner or concerned employee may requests to Payment of Wages Authority to pass appropriate orders under section 17-A(1) and (2) of the Payment of Wages Act. As and when such prayer is made, it is directed to Payment of Wages Authority, Surat to pass, appropriate orders while considering provisions as referred above in accordance with law.

However, in case of any difficulty, after approaching to the concerned authority as well as Labour Court, it is open for petitioner to approach this Court.

In view of above observations and directions, present petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.