JUDGMENT (1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order dated August 21, 1975 in P. W. A. Case No. 132 of 1971. By this order the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Bengal rejected the application for claim filed by the petitioners as not maintainable. The reason which has been given in support of the decision is as follows: "as he (the person employee) is dead and some others come to claim the said amount, the O. P. requires a Succession Certificate. I am of opinion that the O. P. is correct in his demand for a succession certificate". (2.) IT was on this basis the claim was so rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the definition of 'employed person' includes his legal representative under the provision of Section 2 (i) of the Act. The definitions of Payment of Wages act under Section 2 (vi) includes all remuneration (whether by way of salary allowances, of otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied were fulfilled be payable to the person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes various remunerations which have been mentioned therein. It has also been provided that the wages will not include any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which have been accrued thereon. Sub-section (4-A) of Section 15 of the Act is as follows: 'where there is any dispute as to the person or persons being the legal representative or representatives of the employer or of the employed person, the decision of the authority on such dispute shall be final'. This provision clearly indicates that in case of any dispute in regard to the claim of Wage by the legal representatives, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is competent to decide the question and his decision shall be final. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to us certain decisions wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction of the authority is extended to all matters incidental to such claims. But the limited jurisdiction of the authority should not be unreasonably extended in the garb of deciding incidental matters. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to us certain decisions wherein it has been held that the jurisdiction of the authority is extended to all matters incidental to such claims. But the limited jurisdiction of the authority should not be unreasonably extended in the garb of deciding incidental matters. In other words, if a question involves a prolonged enquiry or enquiry into complicated questions of law and fact the authority under the Payment of Wages Act would refuse to exercise his jurisdiction. This has been held in Shri Kamal Prasanna Roy and others v. Shri Maurice Hyam (77 CWN 64). The Supreme Court in Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjain v. Surajmal Mehta, Director, The Barnagar Electric Supply and Industrial Co. Ltd. and another (1968 18 FLR 284= air 1969 SC 590 ) has also observed as follows: "it is also true that while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to the claim or not care should be taken neither to unduly expand nor curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority". There are decisions of other high Courts which have followed the above principles. (3.) ON these authorities, Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that various question of law and fact will arise in determining the question that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased employee. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that there may be other claimants, there may be a Will and other factors which might involve consideration of complicated questions of law and fact and prolonged enquiry. These objections in our opinion are mere surmises by the opposite party without any material in support thereof and are wholly unreasonable. It is not their case that there is any other claim by any other person as legal representative of the deceased employee or that the deceased has left a will and the like. The only objection that has been taken is that these are very complicated matters of law and fact to which the jurisdiction of the authority should not be extended without any materials in support. We are however of opinion that in view of the express provision contained in sub-section (4-A) of Section 15 of the Payment of wages Act, the authority has been given expressly the power to decide such disputes and its decision would be final in respect of such matters. We are however of opinion that in view of the express provision contained in sub-section (4-A) of Section 15 of the Payment of wages Act, the authority has been given expressly the power to decide such disputes and its decision would be final in respect of such matters. It may be that on the evidence adduced by the claimant the authority may not be satisfied about the claims of the claimant as legal representatives of the concerned employee. But that will be a different question altogether. As the authority has been expressly invested with the powers to decide all disputes, we are of opinion that the decision of the authority in this case asking for a succession certificate to enable the claimant to receive the amount in question is unwarranted in law and in passing that order, the authority has acted without jurisdiction, particularly on the unreasonable objection and behest of the opposite party. (4.) ANOTHER objection, as unreasonable as the other, was that the claim made was not for an ascertained amount. It may not be possible for the petitioners to state the exact amount due and payable in the account of the deceased employed person. None the less it is always possible and an obligation on the part of the employer to state from their records the amount as would be due in the account of deceased workmen. This objection accordingly has no substance. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the authority to consider the claim and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner is allowed costs of this application. Hearing fee assessed at 10 (Ten) G. Ms. The Rule is thus disposed of. Rule made absolute.