a p t C I D I ‘1 * a tt a . . t I I $ I I . I 3) I at It t . . 3 S . 1’ r I S ‘1 b 4 S + r Ct t S t • S ) 5 • t a b • Sc S 1’ t F It • • • .1 + • S S a t S ) t t t p S ‘p t p 4 5 • 4 3 0 4 p lb S . ‘p 3 P 4 t t p 0 t t I- 4 S • 3 p 5, 3 4 S I I 4 rçs&’ Heard. Issue D/w. against the respondent returnable by 24.7.93.” On 16.7 .1993 the following endorsement is made by the aithority. “Sri S.N.G. Mv. filed interim applicaticn along with cheque for R. 6,564.00 with Memo tinder Protest.” Against the order dated 1 6.6.1993 petitioner-employer filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act before the District Judge. The main contention urged before the appellate authority was that there was no june a diction for the authority to decide the application made uw!er Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. The / said contention was over—ruled. The District Judge dismissed the appeal on that ground that there was no abjectinna filed by the employer and it also held that the authority who made the order impugned had jurisdiction to decide the issue • While dismissing the appeal the Appellate Authority observated as follows I / — 0 “Therefore, I em of the firm. opinion that the sum arrived at by the appli.csnts were to be eccepted by the loner court and distress warrants were issued at the first instance and as nc objections were filed, the second distress warrants were issied on 16,6,1993, 1 or all these reasons, I am of the firm opinion that tie order of the lower court cannot be interfered with d appeals are to te dismissed)’ This order is challenged before me by the employer/ Corporation, I have heard Ma, Remika, learned counsel for the petitioner, The first contention urged by the learned counsel is thr 1t the application under Section 15(2) of Payment of ages Act is not maintainable, I ao not think this contention is correct, Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act read.s thus : “15(2) Ihere cnntrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages ha a been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union suthorised In aritin to eeC on his behalf, or an Inspector under this 0 ct, or any other person actins with tie termission of the suthority appointed under sub—section (1) ‘ b subsection(1), may aptly to such authority for a direction under sub—section (3)”. “Wages” is defined in the Act an follows: ““Wees” means all remunerion whetner by way of salty, allowances or otherwise expressed in terms of money or capable of being so exoressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his euployment or of ork done in such empicyment, and includes — (a) any remuneration payable unier any award of settlement between the parties or order of a Court ;xxxxc Obviously the amount payable is under the award nassed by the b 5 bour Court is also “wages” as de fired. If th:s be so the aplication under Section i52) of the Payment of Wages Act is mt.ntainahle. The order under challenge rices not call for interference, The Apoellate Court wa justified in dismissir€ the appeal. I do not find sri ground to interfere with the order under challer —7— e, lie writ etitior is ditri- d a’ or air y.