JUDGMENT

K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 20th January, 1969 and the order of the Additional District Judge, Varanasi dated 31st October, 1969 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and upholding order of the Authority.

2. Dal Singar, opposite party No. 1 was in the employment of the Eastern Railway. He was posted as Fitter Khalasi in the Loco Shed at Mogulsarai. On 22nd July, 1965 he worked till 16 hours and as the day following was his rest day, he reported for duty on 24th July, 1965, but the I. F. I., who was the immediate superior officer of opposite party No. 1, did not allow him to resume his duties. He was asked to explain as to why he had not reported for duty on 23rd July, 1965. He explained that since 23rd July was his rest day he did not report for duty. No proceedings were taken, no punishment was awarded, nor he was suspended, instead he was not allowed to work. He filed an application under Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), for the payment of his salary for the period from 23rd July to 22nd August, 1965. That application was registered as Case No. 9 of 1966 before the Authority, opposite party No. 3. The Railway Administration contested that case, but the authority decreed the claim of respondent No. 1 and directed the Administration of Eastern Railway to pay the wages of opposite party No. 1 for the said period from 23rd July to 22nd August, 1965. That order became final as the petitioners did not challenge that order. Payment of the amount so decreed was made to Dal Singar. He, however, filed another application on 12th December, 1966 under Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority, respondent No. 3, claiming wages for the period from 24th August, 1965 to 9th August, 1966 on the allegation that his wages had been withheld illegally by the Railway Administration of the Eastern Railway and that he was not allowed to do his work although he reported everyday for doing his duty. The petitioners entered appearance and opposed the workman's claim before the Authority. Their plea before the Authority was that Dal Singar continued to remain absent with effect from 23rd August, 1965, he never turned up for resuming his duty. Later on, Dal Singar resumed his work and thereupon the Railway Administration treated the period of his absence from duty as leave without pay; hence he was not paid any wages for the said period. The authority as well as the Additional District Judge. Varanasi on appeal by Railway administration rejected the case set up by the railway administration and decreed the claim of Dal Singar, for a sum of Rs. 978.25. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid two orders.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as well as the Additional District Judge hearing appeal against the order of the Authority had no jurisdiction to record any finding as to whether Dal Singar remained absent from duty for the period for which his claim for wages was raised. According to the learned counsel the Railway Administration was entitled to deduct wages of Dal Singar opposite party No. 1 as he remained absent from duty; the decision of the Railway Administration could not be interfered with or questioned by the Authority or by the District Judge; both the courts, the Authority as well as District Judge have exceeded their jurisdiction.

4. Payment of Wages Act is a special enactment which ensures speedy recovery of wages. Sec. 15 lays down that if any deduction from wages is wrongly made or if any delay is caused in payment of the wages, the employee concerned may file an application before the Authority for the payment of his wages. After hearing the parties, the Authority is empowered to direct the employer to make the payment