' S. AHMED SARWANA, J.---The brief facts which are not disputed are that Bashir Ahmed, respondent No,2 (hereinafter referred to as "Bashir") who was an employee, of the petitioner Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred as "Habib") was dismissed for misconduct on A 1-8-1993 and Habib paid a sum of Rs,2,460 in full and final settlement of all dues... His salary, leaves, bonuses and notice of pay, if any, under receipt dated 5-8-1993 wherein he informed that "that....I have no grievance whatsoever against the Company nor any matters financial or otherwise outstanding against the Company." He also issued a Provident Fund Receipt in payment of Rs,50,377 from the Trustees of Habib Sugar Mills Limited, Nawabshah, Staff Provident Fund as "full and final settlement of my contribution towards the Provident Fund Company's Share including interest thereof for the period June, 68 to July, 93". On the same day he issued an acknowledgement of receipt of Rs,42,604 from Habib on behalf of Trustees Employees Gratuity Fund being the amount as, full and final settlement towards his gratuity for the period 1-7-1968 to 1-8-1993...Being 100% of 25 years." He also issued an ex-gratia receipt acknowledging receipt of Rs,42,604 in cash from Habib being the amount as ex- gratia payment for the period 1-7-1963 to 1-8-1993. In both receipts he confirmed that he had no claim on account of gratuity against Habib after his dismissal. Additionally, he executed a document stating that he had received all his legitimate and legal dues from the company (Habib). On 24-7-1996 Bashir filed a "Claim of Unpaid Full Gratuity Benefits (Interest/Profits of Gratuity)" before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority Under Payment of Wages Act, Navvabshah. Subsequently, he filed an amended application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Habib filed its reply statement challenging the maintainability of the application and took several preliminary legal objections. After recording evidence of both parties, the Authority fixed the case for filing his written arguments. Habib instead of filing its arguments filed the present petition on 7-5-2001 challenging the jurisdiction of the Authority and the maintainability of the application filed by Bashir.
2. Habib has admittedly taken several legal objections on the application filed by Bashir which have to be decided after considering the evidence and arguments of both sides. Habib did not request the Authority to first pass an order on the maintainability of the application, which was an important legal question, and participated in the proceedings before the Authority. As Habib has already raised legal objections to the maintainability of the application, the Authority would obviously first decide the issue of Maintainability before proceeding with the disposal of the claim on merits.
3. If Habib was aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the Authority on Bashir's application, it should have approached this Court immediately on receipt of the notice from the Authority but it did not do so for five years from 24-7-1996 to 7-5-2001 and filed the present petition when the case was finally fixed for arguments. The Authority has the power to decide the legal questions raised by Habib which has waited too long to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is apparent that Habib has not acted in a bona fide manner in coming to this Court.
In the circumstances, it would be just and proper for the Authority to proceed with Bashir's application and pass orders thereon including the legal objections taken by Habib. The petition is not bona fide and is accordingly dismissed as such alongwith the interlocutory application.
' Habib shall be liable to pay costs of the petition to the contesting respondents.