1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The petitioner/bank had not availed its remedy against the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (the Act) determining the entitlement of the respondents by filing an appeal under section 17 of the Act, rather assailed the said order through a constitution petition and also challenged the vires of the section ibid. The learned High Court dismissed the petition to the extent of the challenge to the order of the authority on the ground that the petitioner has failed to avail the remedy of an appeal and has retained the constitution petition to the extent of challenge to the vires of the said section. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgments reported as Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others (PLD 2002 SC 452) and Tehsil Municipal Administration Faisalabad City v. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2006 SC 166) has argued that where the order passed by an authority is void the rule that an adequate remedy should always be availed cannot be stringently applied and the constitution petition would be maintainable. When questioned as to why the order passed by the Authority is claimed to be void, learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the Act. However, when further confronted as to whether the petitioner is a 'commercial establishment' within the definition of the Act, an abortive attempt has been made to submit otherwise. From the definition of 'commercial establishment' given in the Act with reference to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (the Ordinance), it is clear that the petitioner falls within the said definition. Therefore any workman aggrieved of nonpayment of wages can approach the Authority. As regards the question as to whether the respondent is a 'workman' within the purview of the Ordinance; suffice it to say that this is a matter of Jurisdictional fad and if the petitioner had lost his case on account that the respondent was B found to be a 'workman', such finding of fact should have been challenged in appeal and not in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the plea that the order of the authority determining such jurisdictional fact is a void determination. No case for interference in the instant jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed accordingly.