The authority prescribed under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to determine whether the employee continued to be employed during the relevant period, even though the company's case is that it had passed a "lay off" order which applied to the employee.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs first appeal. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by the upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd. , which is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing paper. The defendant in the suit was Sri J. G. Mathur, an employee of the company. The prayer in the plaint was that a decree for perpetual injunction be passed against the defendant restraining him from claiming or recovering any salary, wages etc. , from the plaintiff company for the period commencing from the 19th day of October, 1948, by getting any coercive process issued against the plaintiff company for toe realisation of any amount on account of such salary or wages as aforesaid, or otherwise. The plaintiff also prayed that costs of the suit or any other relief that the. Court might consider just and proper might be awarded to the plaintiff company.

( 2 ) THE background of facts which are not disputed by the parties and which have given rise to the present suit may be briefly stated at the outset. In the year 1948 the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff. At the relevant time the defendant was working as a shift foreman in the Soda recovery Plant of the plaintiff company. On the 17th October, 1948, consequent on the breakdown of the turbine of the mill the plaintiff company declared what is termed as "play off". This "play off was to take effect from the 19th October, 1948. It may be mentioned that the term "play off is erroneous, and the correct term is "lay off". In the subsequent portion of the judgment, therefore, the term "lay off will be used in place of the expression "play off". The plaintiffs case was that as a legal consequence of She said "lay off" declared by the company, the defendant should be deemed in law to be unemployed and hence not entitled to any salary or wages. The lay off declared by the plaintiff company led to an industrial dispute between the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other hand about the right of the latter to claim wages after the date of the order of "lay off". This dispute was referred by the Government authorities concerned for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The adjudicator appointed by the Government gave his award, which was enforced by the Government of Uttar Pradesh by their notification dated the 25th May, 1949. This award is Ex. 1. According to this award the employees of the company were not entitled to payment of any salary or wages from the date when the "lay off" order came into effect. The defendant, according to the plaintiffs case, was bound by the said award. In spite of the said award, however, the defendant gave an application dated 3rd January, 1950, to the City magistrate, Lucknow, who was the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act (Act IV of 1936) for the recovery of his wages from the plaintiff company for the period after the 19th october, 1948, and succeeded in obtaining a direction from the said authority under section 15 of the said Act ordering the plaintiff company to pay to the defendant a total sum of Es. 7,849/4/on account of wages and compensation etc. , calculated up to the 28th December, 1950 the date of the order of the afore-mentioned authority. On an appeal being preferred by the plaintiff company to the District Judge under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act the District Judge modified the said order by directing that the defendant was entitled only to wages accruing after the 1st May, 1949, as his claim prior to that date was time-barred. The District Judge accordingly reduced it to Rs. 4,273/4/- only. The plaintiffs case was that the aforesaid proceedings taken under the Payment of Wages Act were not maintainable in law, as the jurisdiction of the said authority was limited the said authority could entertain claims in respect of deducted or delayed wages only. It could not entertain or decide cases in which the very right of the claimant to receive