ORDER Hari Swarup, J. - This revision has been filed by Union of India against the order of the District Judge, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) by which his application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') was dismissed. 2. Chhagan Lal, respondent No. 1, was an employee of the Central Railway Administration. His case was that he sustained injury during the course of employment and hence could not attend to his duties. The Railway Doctor, however, gave him fitness certificate. Chhagan Lal joined duty thereafter and again absented himself from duty as according to him he had not been cured. He remained absent from duty from 7th July, 1966 to 16th August, 1966. When he was discharged from the hospital he joined for two days and again became absent from 19th July, 1966 to 18th November, 1966. For the period from 19th July, 1966 to 18th November, 1966, the Central Railway Administration did not pay him wages and hence Chhagan Lal filed the application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, claiming Rs. 5151- as the deducted wages and an equal amount of Rupees 5151- by way of compensation. According to the Railway Administration, the absence from duty was unauthorised and the employee was not entitled to any payment for this period. 3. The Authority held on a consideration of evidence produced in the case, that in the departmental enquiry the Enquiry Officer had found that Chhagan Lal was absent from duly without justification, and that this finding had remained unchallenged by the applicant before any higher authority of the Railway Administration. Accordingly, the Authority held that the departmental order directing the deduction of wages for absence of the from duty had remained unchallenged and became final. The Authority aLso found that the applicant Chhagan Lal had not moved any application before the Railway Administration for leave for the period of his absence, nor his absence had been regularised or converted into leave. On these findings. the Authority was of the opinion that the application was not maintainable as he had no jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction made by the Railway Administration was justified or not. The application was, `therefore, dismissed. 4. On these findings. the Authority was of the opinion that the application was not maintainable as he had no jurisdiction to decide whether the deduction made by the Railway Administration was justified or not. The application was, `therefore, dismissed. 4. Chhagan Lal went up in the court of the District Judge. The District Judge went into the merits of the matter and found that Chhagan Lal had sustained injury while on duty and that he was entitled to leave and salary for the entire period commencing from 19th July. 1966 and ending on 16th August, 1966. So far as the subsequent period was concerned, the District Judge was of the opinion that Chhagan Lal had to apply for leave and he would be entitled for salary for this period also if he made an application for leave and the leave was granted to him. On this finding, he allowed the appeal in part and directed the Railway Administration to pay, to the appellant full salary and allowances for the period from 19th July, 1966 to 19th August, 1966 and also salary and allowance for the days on which he might have been present and might have worked during the period from 16th August, 1966 to 18th November, 1966. The order about his applying for leave and his right to get salary on the leave application being granted was also passed. This order has now been challenged in revision. 5. The order of the Authority suffered from no error and the appellate authority committed the error of law as well as error of jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and directing the Railway Administration to make the payment. Section 15 of the Act is a provision which confers only limited jurisdiction on the Authority. As held in the case of Shri Ambica Mills Co. Ltd. v. S. B. Bhatt, AIR 1961 SC 970 , the Authority has a limited jurisdiction and can only decide questions incidental to the question about deduction or delay in the payment of wages. Section 7 of the Act says that the wages of an employed person shall he paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorised by the Act. Sub section (2) of Section 7 specified the kinds of deductions of wages of an employed person which are permitted to be made. Clause (b) thereof contemplates deductions for absence from duty. Sub section (2) of Section 7 specified the kinds of deductions of wages of an employed person which are permitted to be made. Clause (b) thereof contemplates deductions for absence from duty. Present is the case of deductions for absence from duty. It is thus a permissible deduced in under the law. The jurisdiction of the authority acting under Section 15 of the Act will extend to determine whether the deduction was in respect of any of the items mentioned in sub :section (2) of Section 7. If he finds that the deduction was for an item not covered by any. of these clauses, he would be entitled to award the amount. Similarly, he will have jurisdiction to enquire as an incidental. matter as to whether an employed person was in fact absent or not. Once he finds that the person was absent and deduction was made for his absence from duty. his jurisdiction to enquiry further comes to an end. He will have no jurisdiction to enquire about the justification of the absence. Whether an employee was justified in absenting himself from duty or not has to be determined by the employer. In the present case, the departmental enquiry had been held and it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the absence from duty was not justified. The Authority under the Act could not sit in appeal over that finding and hold that the absence from duty was justified and the deduction could not be made, even though the employed person was absent from duty. That would be adjudicating on a dispute between the employer and the employee which the Authority has no jurisdiction to do under the payment of wages Act. The case of Divisional Accounts Officer v. Dal Singar, Fitter Khalasi. 1972 All LJ 56 was brought to my notice. In this case. the contention of the employee was that he had been prohibited from joining duty although he reported for duty. In these circumstances, this Court held that the Authority will have jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. This would be so because Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act provides that deduction could be made only for absence from duty. Authority will, there-fore, have to decide whether in the circumstances of the case an employee could be deemed to be absent from duty. This would be so because Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act provides that deduction could be made only for absence from duty. Authority will, there-fore, have to decide whether in the circumstances of the case an employee could be deemed to be absent from duty. This would be a matter ancillary to the exercise of jurisdiction to award the amount. The amount could be required to be paid to the employee only if he had in fact not absented himself from duty and not otherwise. 6. The Appellate Court had no powers beyond the powers of the Authority under the Act and had no jurisdiction to examine the controversy on merits and adjudicate the dispute between the employer and employee about the right of the employee to get the wages for the period the employee was absent from duty. The Appellate Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in deciding on merits the application under Section 15 of the Act after going into the question whether the injuries sustained by the employee were in the course of employment or not and whether the employed person was justified in absenting himself from duty or not. The order passed in appeal cannot therefore be sustained. 7. In the result, the Revision is allowed and the order passed in appeal is set aside. As no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent and Sri B. V. Upadhyaya, Advocate has appeared as amicus curiae, there will be no order as to costs.