JUDGMENT I.P. Vasishth, J.
1. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.3.1997 contained in Annexure-1 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Lucknow.
2. The gist of the matter is that the private respondent No. 3 was an employee of the petitioner and her services were allegedly terminated on 22.8.1991 in complete disregard of the industrial law. From the employer's point of view, the dismissal was valid and legal. The issue was agitated before the Court in Writ Petition No- 2813 (S/S) of 1991 : but, then, the parties were referred to the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act on the sole ground of availability of alternative remedy : where she was non-suited on the ground of limitation. The matter went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who under the Impugned order condoned the delay and directed the prescribed authority to dispose of the case on merit.
3. The submission is that since the employee's dismissal was legal and valid, therefore, she had no legitimate claim to press before the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act. This submission is mentioned only for the purposes of record otherwise it requires summary rejection because the issue of validity of termination of services is irrelevant for the adjudication of the Instant matter. Similarly, whether or not she was entitled for the wages is also irrelevant because if also involves the questions of fact which can be better agitated and determined before the prescribed authority only. Here the limited issue is as to whether an employee agitating the point of arrears of her wages should be knocked out on account of technicalities of law and that too pertaining to the domain of limitation when it is common ground that ever since her dismissal, she had been running from one Court to another for the redressal of her grievance on merit.
4. A matter of the similar nature came for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of D. R. Jerry a. Union of India. AIR 1974 SC 130, wherein the learned Judges were pleased to hold that a well placed employer cannot knock out a low paid employee only on such technical ground of limitation. The ratio is not difficult to understand because the action at law cannot be equaled to a game of chess where moves once made cannot be retrieved. No good ground could be pointed out by the learned counsel to show that the discretion exercised by the learned Additional District Judge in condoning the delay was in any way perverse or unwarranted. Hence for want of merit, the petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.