JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code by P. J. Lartius against the order of the Additional District Judge of Allahabad Y sunrising his appeal and thereby maintaining the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages t Act dismissing his application under s Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The material facts of the case are that the applicant was dismissed from service under order dated 4-9-1955 of the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, U. P., Allahabad. Thereupon the applicant instituted a suit for declaration that his dismissal was null and void. No claim was then made for the arrears of salary up to the date of the suit. The suit was decreed on 2-1-1961 and apparently no appeal was preferred. It was on 23-6-1961 that the applicant was paid his salary from 3-6-1959 to 5-4-1961. 3.6.1959 is probably the date of the institution of the suit and 5-4-1961 is the date prior to his reinstatement in service. When in spite of representations the arrears of salary for the period prior to 3-6-1959 was not paid, the applicant moved the present application on 5-10-1961, under Section 15 of the payment of Wages Act for the recovery of arrears of salary from 7-6-1955 to 3.6.1959 on the ground that his wages had been wrongly deducted. There appears to be some mistake in the date.. It should be 2-6-1959, in case the date of the suit is 3-6-1959. However, for purposes of the revision it is not necessary to clearly express the date up to which the arrears of salary was claimed in the present proceeding. 3. The City Magistrate who was the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to entertain the application under Section 15 was under a wrong impression that the prescribed period of limitation for making the application under Section 15 was four months. He did not condone the delay in making the application and, consequently, dismissed the application. 4. The Additional District Judge was under the wrong impression that the appeal was not maintainable, but he in addition expressed the opinion: that the appeal had no force on merits. 5. The revision can be dismissed on a different point though it appears that the applicant has been a victim of wrong legal advice given by his counsel. 4. The Additional District Judge was under the wrong impression that the appeal was not maintainable, but he in addition expressed the opinion: that the appeal had no force on merits. 5. The revision can be dismissed on a different point though it appears that the applicant has been a victim of wrong legal advice given by his counsel. It was prior to 1950 that no suit for the recovery of arrears of salary was maintainable against the Crown and the aggrieved employee had merely to sue for declaration that his dismissal from service was null and void. But after India became a Republic there was no Crown and arrears of salary could be claimed in the suit. See The State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 245 and Om Prakash Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 600 : 1955 A.L.J. 617 The applicant was, however, ill-advised to merely sue for declaration and not for the arrears of salary also. The law must therefore, have its course though the applicant would be free to move the State Government for such relief as it may like to grant even though the claim is barred under the law. 6. After the dismissal of the applicant from service on 4-9-1955, no application under Section 15 of the payment of Wages Act was maintainable unless in a regular suit the order of dismissal was declared to be null and void and the applicant held to be still in service. However, in view of Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code it was necessary for him to claim in the same suit all the reliefs arising out of the same cause of action, unless he postponed claiming a relief with the leave of the court. No such leave was obtained. Consequently, as laid down in Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code the relief not claimed shall be deemed to have been given up. When the applicant was challenging the order of dismissal, he could claim in the same suit the arrears of salary which arose out of the same cause of action, namely, the order of dismissal passed by the opposite party. When the applicant was challenging the order of dismissal, he could claim in the same suit the arrears of salary which arose out of the same cause of action, namely, the order of dismissal passed by the opposite party. The claim for arrears of salary would not have been barred by Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act as up to that stage the arrears of salary, whether as arrears or as deduction from wages, could not have been recovered by an application under Section 15. In other words, had the applicant cared to sue for arrears of salary, he could ask for such a relief in the suit which he had instituted in 1959. When he did not claim the arrears of salary, he shall be deemed to have given up this part of the claim and having given up the claim he cannot claim that relief in another suit or proceeding. 7. When the arrears of salary could not be claimed in another suit it cannot also be recovered in a proceeding under the payment of Wages Act. The provisions of this Act are not meant to confer any additional right on an employee. Payment of Wages Act makes a provision for speedy recovery of the wages or of any deduction from wages which is due, i.e. is not barred under the law. When the claim for arrears of salary prior to 3-6-1959 was barred by Or. II, Rule 2, C. P. C., such amount could not be recovered in a proceeding under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. On this ground the present application under Section 15 of the Daily Wages Act was not maintainable. 8. The cause of action for the arrears of salary for the period subsequent to dismissal from service arose out of the order of dismissal and this part of the claim is clearly barred by Or. II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code With regard to the claim for the earlier period the matter can be considered in the alternative. 8. The cause of action for the arrears of salary for the period subsequent to dismissal from service arose out of the order of dismissal and this part of the claim is clearly barred by Or. II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code With regard to the claim for the earlier period the matter can be considered in the alternative. If the non-payment of a part of the wages for the, earlier period was a consequence of the dis missal order, the cause of action would be the same and when no relief was claimed in the suit, the claim for this period also would be barre by Order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code But if the claim for this period was not bar. red by Order II, Rule 2, C. P. C., the deductions were made on or be fort 4-9-1955 and the application under Section 15 should have been made within six months of this date. Instead, the application was made after more than 6 years, and hence was barred by limitation. 9. To sum up, the present application under Section 15 of the payment of Wages Act was not maintainable and it was rightly dismissed by the lower courts. 10. The revision has thus no force and it is hereby dismissed. Costs on parties.