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. 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. Sec. 7 (2) of the Act enumerates deductions from the wages of an employee which are prescribed under the Act. Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 7 lays down that deductions from the wages of an employed person can be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act which may be for absence from duty. Similarly, clause (11) of Sub-sec. Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 7 lays down that deductions from the wages of an employed person can be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act which may be for absence from duty. Similarly, clause (11) of Sub-sec. (2) of the same section permits deduction of wages if such deduction is made under an order of a Court or authority competent to make such order. Sec. 9 of the Act further lays down the circumstances under which deductions permissible under clause (b) of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 7 to be made. These provisions clearly show that deductions from the wages of an employee are permissible only if the employee wilfully and voluntarily absents himself from duty. If the employee is prevented from resuming his duty by any officer of the employer, in that event no deduction of wages is permissible under the Act. In a case where deductions are made by the employer and if the matter is agitated before the Authority, it is incumbent on the employer to establish that the deductions from the wages of the employee were made in accordance with provisions contained in the Act. If the employer claims right to deduct wages on account of absence from duty, it would be the duty of the employer to place material before the Authority to show that the employee concerned remained wilfully absent from duty, or that an order had been passed by a competent Authority for the deduction of wages. If this burden is not discharged by the employer, the employee would be entitled to his wages. 5. In the present case, Dal Singar, the affected employee asserted before the Authority that He reported for work but was not allowed to resume his duty by the officers of the Railway Administration. An issue was framed on that question. Evidence was led by both the parties and thereafter the Authority as well as the Additional District Judge recorded findings that the Railways Administration had failed to prove that the employee remained absent voluntarily from duty during the period in question. On the contrary both the courts have held that Dal Singar, opposite party No. 1 reported to duty but he was not allowed to resume work as his immediate superior officer was annoyed with him. On the contrary both the courts have held that Dal Singar, opposite party No. 1 reported to duty but he was not allowed to resume work as his immediate superior officer was annoyed with him. Repelling the contention of Railway administration the District Judge has rightly observed that if the employee continued to remain absent voluntarily for a period of one year the Railway Administration would have certainly taken action against him, he would have been dismissed from service. No charge-sheet was, however, issued against him, no departmental enquiry was held, or any punishment was awarded to Dal Singar, and further no order for deduction of wages was passed by any competent authority in consequence of any departmental inquiry. The findings recorded by the Authority and the Additional District Judge clearly show that opposite party No. 1 did not absent himself voluntarily from his duty during the period in question. The petitioners' contention that they were entitled to withhold Dal Singar's wages under Sec. (7) 2 (b) of the Act therefore fails. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Authority as well as the District Judge had no jurisdiction to record the aforesaid finding as it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Administration to decide the question whether the employee remained absent from duty or not. Once that decision is given by competent officers of the Railway Administration, the Authority has no jurisdiction to investigate that question or to sit in appeal upon the orders passed by the officers of the Railway Department. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Divisional Bench case of Kundan Lal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1961 Alld. 567. 7. In Kundan Lal's case a Division Bench of this Court held that it was not open to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to sit in appeal over the orders of punishment passed by the Railway Authorities against their employee, and it was not open to such an employee to approach the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to set at naught the decisions of the authority under the Railway Establishment Code. The facts of that case would show that the Railway employee in that case was charged for having committed misconduct. The facts of that case would show that the Railway employee in that case was charged for having committed misconduct. A departmental inquiry was held, thereafter an order of punishment was passed against him, requiring the employee to pay certain amount of money to the Railway Administration to make good the loss suffered by the Railway Administration on account of the negligence of that employee. It was in pursuance of the said order of punishment that deductions were made from the salary of that employee. The employee, however, approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Authority made an inquiry into the question whether the loss caused to the Railway Administration was due to the negligence of the employee. The Authority recorded findings that the employee was not responsible for the loss and, therefore, the deduction of wages was illegal. The Authority ignored the findings recorded by the officers of the Railway in the departmental proceedings, instead it recorded its own findings on the question which were the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings against the employee. The Union of India thereupon filed a writ petition before this Court which was allowed and a special appeal filed by the Railway employee was dismissed. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that this court held that the Authority had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the orders of punishment passed by the Railway against its employee. There is no doubt that once an order as required under the rules regulating the service conditions of an employee is passed, the Authority cannot sit in appeal over that order while exercising jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act. In the present case, however, that situation does not prevail. No order of a competent authority has been placed before this Court showing that any inquiry was held or that any findings were recorded by any competent officer of the Railway Administration, holding that Dal Singar respondent No. 1 remained voluntarily absent from duty during the period in question. In the absence of any such order or decision by the Railway Authorities the Authority was, in my opinion, justified in considering the question whether the deductions were made according to the provisions contained in the Payment of Wages Act and while determining that question the Authority had full jurisdiction to investigate and record findings on incidental matters. 8. In the absence of any such order or decision by the Railway Authorities the Authority was, in my opinion, justified in considering the question whether the deductions were made according to the provisions contained in the Payment of Wages Act and while determining that question the Authority had full jurisdiction to investigate and record findings on incidental matters. 8. The scope of jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act while exercising its powers under Sec. 15 was considered at length by the Supreme Court in Sri Ambika Mills v. S.B. Bhatt, A.I.R. 1961 SC 970. After analysing the provisions of the Act their Lordships held that the jurisdiction conferred on the Authority to deal with the question prescribed under Sec. 15 of the Act was exclusive; but, at the same time that jurisdiction was narrow. Their Lordships made the following observation : "In dealing with the claims arising out of deduction or delay made in payment of wages, the Authority inevitably would have to consider questions incidental to the said matters. In determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to affect or impair the limited jurisdiction conferred on the authority." After considering the various judicial decisions cited before the Court, Their Lordships observed : "In our opinion, it would be inexpedient to lay down any hard and fast or general rule which would afford a determining test to demarcate the field of incidental facts which can be legitimately considered by the authority and those which cannot be so considered." Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of Payment of Wages Inspector v. Suraj Mal Mehta, A.I.R. 1969 SC 590. 9. The law laid down by the Supreme Court makes it clear that the Authority while exercising its exclusive powers under Sec. 15 of the Act is empowered to investigate and inquire into incidental matters which may be necessary for the exercise of that power. In the present case the sole plea raised by the petitioners for the deduction of wages of the employee was that he remained absent voluntarily from duty during the period in question. In the present case the sole plea raised by the petitioners for the deduction of wages of the employee was that he remained absent voluntarily from duty during the period in question. The employee on the other hand denied to have remained absent. According to him he reported for duty, but he was not allowed to work. The Railway Administration itself did not held any inquiry nor any competent officer or authority recorded any findings on that question. No order of any competent authority holding that Dal Singar opposite party No. 1 remained voluntarily absent throughout the period in question, was placed before the Authority or the District Judge. As already observed no such order has been filed even before this Court. Under the circumstances, the Authority had to investigate the facts on the basis of which petitioners justified deduction of wages. On the evidence on record the Authority recorded findings that the employee did not voluntarily absent from duty. The findings recorded by the Authority was upheld in appeal. In the absence of any order or finding recorded or produced by the petitioners the Authority and the District Judge were fully entitled to record their own findings on the question. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has then urged that it was not incumbent on the Railway Administration to have filed any order before this Court or before the Authority or the District Judge, and the mere statement on behalf of the Railway Administration that the employee, opposite party No. 1 remained voluntarily absent during the period in question, should have been accepted. He has urged that burden of proof to establish illegal deduction was on the employee and the Railway administration was not required to produce any order or to lead any evidence before the Prescribed Authority. There is no force in this submission. As already observed, whenever a right is claimed by the employer to deduct wages of its employee, it has to establish that the deduction was made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. Once it is proved that there was a service contract and in pursuance of that service contract the employer was liable to pay wages to its employee and that such wages were not paid, then a heavy burden would be on the employer to justify its action. In the present case similar situation prevailed. Once it is proved that there was a service contract and in pursuance of that service contract the employer was liable to pay wages to its employee and that such wages were not paid, then a heavy burden would be on the employer to justify its action. In the present case similar situation prevailed. The petitioners admitted to have deducted wages, therefore, the burden lay on them to justify the deduction of wages of Dal Singar opposite party No. 1. Once deduction of wages of Dal Singar was established, the petitioners were required to justify their action by leading evidence before the Authority to show that the deductions were made in accordance to the provisions of the Act. The petitioners relied upon Sec. 7 (2) (b) and (h) to justify their action, hence a heavy burden of proof lay on them to prove that deduction made by them was in accordance to Sec. (2) (b) and (h) of the Act. The petitioners failed to produce evidence before the Authority that any inquiry had been held against Dal Singar or that any order had been passed by a competent authority holding Dal Singar to have remained voluntarily absent from duty. Similarly, no order passed by any competent authority as required by clause (h) of Sec. 7 (2) of the Act was produced by the petitioners before the Authority or even before this Court. A bald statement of the petitioners without any satisfactory evidence, could not be sufficient in law to reject the employee's claim. Sec. 7 (2) (h) presupposes existence of an order issued by a court of law or by a competent authority which include officers of the Railway administration authorised under the rules, directing for the deduction of wages of the employee. If no such order it produced, or proved to have been issued, the Authority shall have full jurisdiction to reject the employee's plea. The petitioners have not filed any order as contemplated by Sec. 7 (2) (h) of the Act, hence they were not entitled to deduct the wages. The petitioners failed to discharge their burden; hence, the Authority and the District Judge rightly decreed the claim of opposite party No. 1. 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed; but since no one has appeared to oppose it on behalf of the opposite parties, there will be no order as to costs.