JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit filed by the respondent claiming to be a permanent employee of the North Eastern Railway; The allegations made in the plaint was that the plaintiff was posted as Hospital Attendant under the D.M.O., N.E.R., Izzatnagar, Bareilly since 16-11-1954. The D.M.O. illegally entrusted him the work of cleaning the domestic utensils and being Vaish by caste be could not do this and requested and submitted representations to the C.M.O. Gorakhpur bringing to the notice that the duties of the Hospital Attendant were only to attend on patients, ,nurses and doctors. It is said that he was required to proceed on leave and he went on one month's leave in November, 1963. He again wanted to extend the leave but the same was refused. He then wanted to join the duties but he was not allowed to resume the work. The plaintiff alleges to have given various applications to the authorities concerned for redress of grievances but to no effect. Later on he was given a charge-sheet and some major penalties have been inflicted on the plaintiff. In para 7 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff is neither suspended nor dismissed but he was not being paid salaries. On these allegations the plaintiff had filed the suit for a decree for Rs. 500 for torturing and for Rs. 1719 for arrears of salary and also for a direction that the defendants be asked to give work to the plaintiff. 2. Allegations in the plaint were refuted in the written statement and it was alleged that the plaintiff himself did not resume his duties; that he was not entitled to any amount by way of salary and that the suit was barred under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and has decreed the suit for the plaintiff. It is against this decision that the North Eastern Railway has come up in Second Appeal before this Court. 4. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and has decreed the suit for the plaintiff. It is against this decision that the North Eastern Railway has come up in Second Appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted arguments only on three points, namely, (1) that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act; (2) the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and (3) that the notice under 80 C.P.C. was not valid. It is admitted by both the parties that by virtue of Section 1 (4) of the Payment of Wages Act a claim for wages under that Act also covers those persons who are employed by the Railway Administration. Section 2-IX (vi) defines wages as under - "Wages means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or 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 a person employed, in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes...................." 5. Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act provides for claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty in respect thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 lays down as under:- "Sub-section (2): Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, of any person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3): Provided............." 6. While considering an application under Section 15 the authority has therefore to keep in mind the following matters:- (1) that the authority would have no jurisdiction to decide whether the services of the employee has been rightly or wrongly terminated or whether the dismissal is lawful or unlawful; (2) the primary function of the authority is to determine what the wages of the employee are and whether there has been a delay in the payment of those wages or deductions from those wages has been made; and (3) In order to determine the wages it may be necessary to determine what the terms of the contract were under which the employee was employed and under which he has claimed his wages. For determining point No. 3 the authority may have to determine whether any agreement of employment existed during the period for which the wages have been claimed; and (4) if there are two rival contracts set up by the parties and the question is which of the two contracts was applicable then the authority will have no jurisdiction to decide as to which of the two contracts will regulate the wages of the parties. 7. From the above it would be found that in order to exercise jurisdiction the authority under the Payment of Wages Act first to determine as to whether there existed or exists, during the relevant period, any relationship of employer or employee and if such a relationship does appear to exist then to find out the terms thereof. The authority will also see that the claim has been put within limitation and the fact that the aggrieved employee has not been paid wages for any particular period or some unlawful deductions have been made therefrom, or there has been some delay in the payment of wages. In either of these cases, the authority will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. However, if the question arises as to the dismissal, the authority will have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 8. Lastly, reference may be made to Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act which creates a bar and debars the civil and other court, from taking cognisance of any matter about which proceedings can be taken under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. 8. Lastly, reference may be made to Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act which creates a bar and debars the civil and other court, from taking cognisance of any matter about which proceedings can be taken under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The relevant portion of Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act read as under:- "No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages in so far as the sum so claimed:- (a) to (c)................... (d) could have been recovered by an application under S. 15." 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to the case of Singh Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Kandhai, reported in 1975 Lab IC 853 (All) it was held therein; "The jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 is primarily limited to deciding the two questions as to whether there has been any wrongful deduction from the wages of an employee and whether there has been any delay in the payment of wages and the matters incidental to those questions which generally are (1) determination of question as to what the wages of the employee are (2) finding out terms of contract between the employer and the employee, (3) deciding whether initially there was any relationship of employer and employee between the parties and (4) deciding whether the application under Section 15 (2) is time barred and whether there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing it." 10. These grounds are almost the same as have been considered in the case reported in AIR 1958 Bom 111 (FB). It may, however, be noticed that this case which is relied upon by the learned counsel arose when the undertaking had been closed and employees had been retrenched. In such cases therefore the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end and question which becomes necessary for determination would be about the legality or otherwise of the lock-out and retrenchment. Such a case, of course, would not be decided under Section 15 Payment of Wages Act but where the relationship of employer and employee subsists then this ruling will have hardly any application. 11. Such a case, of course, would not be decided under Section 15 Payment of Wages Act but where the relationship of employer and employee subsists then this ruling will have hardly any application. 11. Therefore, the scheme of the Payment of Wages Act clearly envisages that if the matter was fully covered from the provisions of Section 15 of the Act then in respect of such matter no suit could lie. The question, therefore, arises as to whether in the present case the conditions required for conferring jurisdiction on the authority under Section 15 are present or not. According to the allegations made in the plaint the plaintiff was employed as Hospital Attendant. He, according to him, was not required to do the work of cleaning the domestic utensils and for that reason there was some correspondence by the plaintiff with the higher authorities and ultimately he proceeded on leave.. Later on, according to the version of the plaintiff, he was not allowed to work by the authorities although he presented himself on duty. According to the version of the defendant the plaintiff did not join and did not carry on any duty. A disciplinary; proceeding was started against him in which ultimately ex parte decision had to be taken and five increments of the-plaintiff were stopped by way of punishment. The very fact that disciplinary proceedings were taken against the plaintiff and five increments have been stopped clearly goes to show that the stand of the defendant was not that the services of the plaintiff had been terminated, or plaintiff had been dismissed, and, therefore, in a nutshell the case of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant was that the relationship of employer and employee subsisted between the parties. That being so, the jurisdiction of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act would be attracted. The plaintiff claims that he was not given the work on duty while the defendant say that the plaintiff did not join duty. In either case the question for decision would be if the plaintiff should be paid the salary for the period in dispute or he would not be entitled to salary on account of nonperformance of duties. This was a matter to be decided entirely by the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. In either case the question for decision would be if the plaintiff should be paid the salary for the period in dispute or he would not be entitled to salary on account of nonperformance of duties. This was a matter to be decided entirely by the authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite obvious that it is not a case based on termination or dismissal from service but is a case for wages during the subsistence of the relationship of the employer and the employee between the parties. Section 15 would clearly be applicable and findings of the court below in this regard are absolutely erroneous. 12. It was next argued by the Counsel for the plaintiff that apart from the relief of arrears of salary the plaintiff has claimed Rs. 500/- for mental worry and torture and has also prayed for direction to the defendant that the plaintiff be placed on duty and as such the whole suit was within the cognizance of ,the Civil Court. I do not agree for the simple reason that the claim in respect of the past arrears is quite separable from the other reliefs and the authority under the Payment of Wages Act could obviously take cognizance of the dispute regarding claim of arrears. 13. This leads us to the conclusion that for the other two remaining reliefs the suit of the plaintiff would be maintainable. However, there is no evidence on the record to substantiate that the plaintiff was entitled to any amount by way of damages mental worry and torture. Nothing has been stated in the plaint to support the plea nor there is anything in the evidence to prove the same. In view of this the plaintiff would not be entitled to any decree for Rs. 500. The courts below also have not granted any relief in respect thereof to him. 14. As regards the last relief regarding a direction being issued to the defendant to give him some duty it is sufficient to say that such a relief cannot be granted in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 500. The courts below also have not granted any relief in respect thereof to him. 14. As regards the last relief regarding a direction being issued to the defendant to give him some duty it is sufficient to say that such a relief cannot be granted in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It appears that the plaintiff continues to be in service and, therefore, he can faithfully attend to his duties in his office even if no duty be assigned to him for which, he would be entitled to his salaries from the defendant and he may take necessary steps to recover the same. 15. In the circumstances stated above, I find that there is force in the appeal which is accordingly allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as being barred by Section 22 of Payment of Wages Act. However, the costs of the; suit are directed to be borne out by the" parties themselves throughout.