ORDER H. R. Krishnan, J. This petition is by the employer-respondent in a proceed ing before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, from as inter locutory order permitting the legal representatives of the original applicant to continue the proceedings. No doubt, the final order is appealable, but the employer-respondent has thought it fit to come here even now seeking an order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to the effect that in the instant proceeding the legal representatives cannot be permitted to proceed with the application of the employee u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act which must be struck off. It is urged by the petitioner that the amendment in 1964 introducing the idea of legal representatives while enabling them in future proceedings under the Act to get substitution, at the same time shows that the legal representatives had no status under the Act before the amendment. Though the petitioner has been hasty, the matter having come up to this Court, it is proper for us to give our decision on the subject. The Payment of Wages Act has provided for a simple, cheap and summary procedure to enable employees, earning less than the prescribed monthly pay, to realise the arrear-wages from their employers. In fact, section 22 of the Act bars civil Courts from entertaining suits for the recovery of wages in so far as the same claim could have been recovered by an application u/s 15 of the Act. Thus to hold in agreement with the petitioner that the legal representatives were incompetent, before the amendment of 1964, to pursue the proceedings would be in effect to maintain that the claim for arrear-wages as could be made by an employee dies with him and does not pass to the heirs as part of his estate. Such a proposition is repugnant to all the principles of jurisprudence. A claim for a liquidated amount from another person is part of the claimant's estate and passes on to its heirs who can sue subject of course to limitation and other legal requirements. Further, to hold that the claim for wages of persons drawing below Rs. 400 a month dies with them, while theme for wages on a higherleval survives aspart of their estate, would be a very absurd proposition. We arc unable to iind anything in the Payment of Wages Act, to justify such a conclusion. Further, to hold that the claim for wages of persons drawing below Rs. 400 a month dies with them, while theme for wages on a higherleval survives aspart of their estate, would be a very absurd proposition. We arc unable to iind anything in the Payment of Wages Act, to justify such a conclusion. Three grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner in justification of his theory. Firstly, that section 15(2) of the Act, empowers 'the employee himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered Trade Union.... and does not mention the legal representatives. For one thing, we are concerned here with the appearance of the legal representatives after the application has been filed by. the, employee for another, the list given there is to contract the position of the employee with his lawyer or other representatives; but the legal representative or heir is in effect the employee himself and need not be separately mentioned. Secondly, the mention of legal representative in the. amendment is primarily by way of clarification. The right of the legal representative is inherent and has not been created by the amendment. Thirdly, Order 22, Civil Procedure Code, is of some interest. This Order does not create any rights or liabilities for the legal representative. In fact, the first rule clearly provides that the death of the plaintiff or defendant does not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives; the right to claim the arrear-wages being part of the employee's estate, certainly survives after his death. The rules in Order 22, Civil Procedure Code, are procedural and are calculated to enable Courts to dispose of litigation expeditiously and save the litigants themselves from belated and vexatious demands and the possible multiplicity of suits. None of these circumstances indicates that, in the Payment of Wages Act, there is exception to the principle recognised in the general law that the claim for arrear-wages survives to the benefit of the heirs of the employee. Thus we find that the authority was correct in permitting the legal representatives of the original applicant-employee to proceed with the claim. The petition is dismissed. Costs and pleader's fee payable by the petitioner to the opposite party Rs. 25. The balance in deposit may be refunded to the petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed