Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner workman filed claim application before the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 under Section 15 of the Act for a direction for payment of his difference of wages along with compensation amounting to Rs. 22,256.50 paise.

3. The claim of the workman is that his wages had not been paid for the period 1.7.1979 to 1.9.1983 which was later on amended in respect of change of period of claim from 1.7.1979 to 10.10.1980. The claim application of the workman was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 14/15/ 7.1996 appended as Annexure­3 to the writ petition.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Prescribed Authority :

¼d½ D;k oknh dk izkFkZuk i= fcyfEcr gS ;fn gka rks bldk izHkko\

¼[k½ D;k oknh Jfed 1-7-79 ls 9-10-80 rd dh vof/k rd dk osru iqujhf{kr osrueku esa ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

5. As regards first issue the Prescribed Authority has held that the claim filed by the workman did not suffer from vice of limitation. As regards second issue is concerned, the Prescribed Authority has given a finding of fact that non-payment of wages as well as the wages for the remaining period would amounts to deduction in wages. It was further held that the workman was entitled for the amount in respect of the revised pay scale for the period 1.7.79 to 9 10.80, hence he is entitled to the deducted wages amounting to Rs. 6,810.51 paise along with amount of compensation of Rs. 610.51 as well as cost of Rs. 300/-.The relevant extract of the order/direction dated 15.7.96 by the Prescribed Authority are as under :

"fcUnq [k ds lEcU/k esa izfroknh i{k }kjk vius fyf[kr mRrj esa mfYyf[kr vkifRr;ksa ij cy fn;k x;k gS tcfd oknh i{k dh vksj ls izfroknh lk{kh Jh kjn V.Mu ds }kjk fn;s x;s c;ku fd vksj esjk /;ku vkdf"kZd fd;k x;k ftlesa mUgksaus NVuh kqnk deZpkfj;ksa fd Hkkafr bZDlxzsfl;k /ku oknh Jfed dks Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldrk gS fd vksj fnykrs gq;s rdZ fn;k fd tc Jfed dh NVuh ugha dh xbZ gS rks Jfed dh NVuh deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr bDlxzsfl;k nsus dk izu ugha iSnk gksrk gS Jfed bDthfoV bZ&2 ds rgr 1-7-1979 ls 9-10-1980 rd dk Hkqxrku ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS bl rF; dks oknh lk{kh us vius eq[; /;ku esa Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS ds okn Hkh /ku dk Hkqxrku u djuk rFkk fn;s /ku dks euhvkMZj ls u Hkstuk fufpr :i ls osru dVkSrh gSA oknh i{k dh vksj ls ;g Hkh rdZ nsrs gq;s dgk x;k iquZf{kr osrueku 1-7-1979 ls 9-10-1980 rd fd;s tkus ij izfroknh i{k us dksbZ fookn viuh IyhfMax esa ugha fd;k gSA"

6. The employer did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order as provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, rather they filed a review application/recall for setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

7. It appears that the Prescribed Authority has reviewed its earlier order vide order dated 28.12.1996 and ordered that considering the fact that the workman has been paid his wages due to him, hence the employer was directed to make payment of Rs.1193.40 paise towards wages and the amount of compensation of Rs.1193.40 i.e. total amount of Rs. 2386.80 paise was directed to be paid to him as per orders on second application. It is against this order the present writ petition has been filed. .

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has also concealed the fact that he has in fact filed an application for recall of the order and has filed the present writ petition.

9. It appears that neither the aforesaid order/direction dated 15.7.1996 of the Prescribed Authority has been challenged by the employer in appeal nor they had paid the aforesaid amount to the workman concerned. The Prescribed Authority has no powers of review under the Payment of Wages Act. The employer did not challenge the order dated 15.7.1996 in appeal under Section 17 of the Act, therefore, the order dated 28.12.1996 was passed without jurisdiction or authority and a null