JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - This case has come to us on a reference made by our brother B. B. Asthana. 2. The Petitioner in the writ petition is the Divisional Accounts officer, Eastern Railway, Danapur the respondent No. 3, Rama Rain, was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry conducted under the provisions of the Railway Bata.establishment Code. On the basis of that enquiry an order was passed by a competent authority reducing the respondent No. 3, Rama Ram, in rank. Rama Ram unsuccessfully appealed against that order. He then approached the respondent No. 2 the Payment of Wages Authority on the ground that there has been a deduction in his wages. Rama Ram con;Ended before the Payment of Wages Authority that the order reducing him in rank and the one passed by the appellate authority was without sufficient and good cause and consequently bad in law. The Payment of Wages Authority held that the order of reduction in rank passed against Rama Ram was without sufficient and :good cause and, therefore, allowed the application and on the basis of the pay he would have received if he would not have been reduced in rank awarded certain amounts to him. The railway authority appealed to the District Judge, but without success. Thereafter it has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Vinod Swarup has strenuously contended before us that the Payment of Wages Authority is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and there was no provision in the Payment of Wages Act which permitted it to review or revise or ignore the orders passed by a competent authority reducing the respondent No. 3 in rank and that of the appellate authority affirming the decision of the original authority. 4.Mr. Sankatha Rai, the learned counsel for Rama Ram, has placed reliance upon explanation 2 to section 7 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was introduced in the Act in 1957 by means of an amendment. That provision reads" "Any 1089 of wages resulting from the imposition, for good and sufficient cause, upon a person employed of any of the following penalties, namely, (i) ................................................ (ii) the reduction to 3 lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; or (iii) ................................................ That provision reads" "Any 1089 of wages resulting from the imposition, for good and sufficient cause, upon a person employed of any of the following penalties, namely, (i) ................................................ (ii) the reduction to 3 lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; or (iii) ................................................ shall not be deemed to be a deduction from wages in any case where the rules framed by the employer for the imposition of any such penalty are in conformity with the requirements, if any, which may be specified in this behalf by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette." Mr. Sankatha Rai contends that this provision confers upon the Payment of Wages Authority the jurisdiction to review the order passed by the original authority as also by the appellate authority, to re-examine the matter again and to form its own conclusion whether or not the reduction in rank was ordered for good and sufficient reason. We are unable to agree. The provision is in the nature of a ,restriction on the powers of the Payment of Wages Authority and curtails its jurisdiction in a case where reduction of rank has been ordered for good and sufficient reason. The provision does not extend the jurisdiction of the authority. All that the explanation means is that whenever there is a valid order reducing a person in rank then the Payment of Wages Authority would not have the jurisdiction to hold that there has been a reduction in wages. In A. V. D'Costa v. B. C. Patel A.I.R. 1955 SC 412; the Supreme Court had pointed out that the Payment of Wages Authority is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and not a civil Court and it had to function within the strict limits of jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Act. That was a case where A. V. D'Costa wanted adjudication by the Payment of Wages Authority on the footing that be was entitled to a higher wage, being entitled to a promotion. The Supreme Court while quashing the order of the Payment of Wages Authority held that the Payment of Wages Authority had only to consider the actual wages and not potential Rages. It appears that with a view to bring the statutory provisions in line with the Supreme Court decision mentioned above, Explanation 2 was added to section 7 of the Act. It appears that with a view to bring the statutory provisions in line with the Supreme Court decision mentioned above, Explanation 2 was added to section 7 of the Act. We are satisfied that the Payment of Wages Authority as also the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) were in error and acted without jurisdiction in ignoring the order reducing the respondent No. 8 in rank. Once a competent authority had reduced the respondent No. 3 in rank and his order was affirmed by the appellate authority, it was not open to the Payment of Wages authority to ignore these orders and hold that the reduction in rank was not for good and sufficient reasons. These orders were conclusive on the point of good and sufficient reason. 5. Mr. Sankatha Rai next submitted that the railway administration had an alternative remedy of filing a revision application under section 115, Civil P. C. against the order of the Payment of Wages authority and the Appellate authority (Additional District Judge). Remedy by way of a revision is not such an alternative remedy which may result in this Court refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to issue a proper writ. We are satisfied that the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority as also by the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) are wholly without jurisdiction. They must, therefore, be quashed. 6. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the orders of the Payment of Wages Authority (annexure No. III to the writ Petition) as also of the appellate authority (Additional District Judge, Varanasi) dated 20.5.1964 but direct the parties to bear their own costs.