JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff had fully paid up the wages of defendants and for an injunction restraining them from enforcing Award No. 83 of 1965 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirtinagar, dated 15th November, 1965, or to recover anything thereunder. The plaintiff-respondent is a contractor. He undertook the job of construction on the Rishikesh-Kirtinagar and Srinagar Rudra Prayag roads. One of the jobs on the Rishikesh-Kirtinagar road fell in the district of Tehri Garhwal but the other job on Srinagar-Rudra Prayag road fell in the district of Pouri. The plaintiff employed clerks and mates and recruited coolies for the job. Defendant No. 1 was the Mata in charge of both the jobs. According to the plaintiff's case he used to take money from the plaintiff to disburse it among the Coolies; that the accounts were fully settled and the amount due to the Coolies had been fully paid by the plaintiff through defendant No. 1 but the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 had not paid some of their dues to the Coolies, whereupon he sent a registered letter to the first defendant asking him to make payment to the Coolies, but received no reply from the first defendant. It is then said that the plaintiff received information from the Labour Inspector, Hardwar, in December, 1963 and July 1965, that defendant No. 1 had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,000/- which was contested by the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed but the first defendant then filed another suit in the court of the District Magistrate, Narendranagar, which was transferred to the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirtinagar and was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 4,642.79 on 15th November 1965. It may be here pointed -out that what have been referred to as suits in the plaint, were not regular suits. The nature of the first proceeding is not clear. The subsequent proceeding was under the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the jurisdiction of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was exclusive, and the suit was barred. 3. The nature of the first proceeding is not clear. The subsequent proceeding was under the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the jurisdiction of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was exclusive, and the suit was barred. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit on the findings that the Payment of Wages Act applied to the work carried on by the plaintiff, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirtinagar, had jurisdiction to hear and decide the entire claim under the Payment of Wages Act. The lower appellate court has, however, decreed the suit on the findings that the work carried on by the plaintiff was not an industrial establishment and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kirtinagar had no jurisdiction to make any award in respect of the work falling within the district of Pauri, and as the award was inseparable the whole of it must fail for having been given by an authority having no jurisdiction in the matter. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that this appeal must succeed. The term industrial establishment is defined under Section 2 (ii) (g) of the Payment of Wages Act, to mean any "establishment in which any work relating to the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of water, or relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on". It is difficult to say how in the face of this definition the lower appellate court found that the plaintiff was not running an industrial establishment. The plaintiff was a contractor who had undertaken a work relating to the construction of a road. He had in that connection set up an organisation with clerks, mates and coolies, and clause (g) of the definition of an industrial establishment, quoted above, clearly took within its import an establishment in which any work relating to the construction of roads is being carried on. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, however, urged that the word 'establishment' connotes something permanent and inasmuch as the work of a contractor is temporary and keeps on shifting from place to place, it cannot be termed an establishment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, however, urged that the word 'establishment' connotes something permanent and inasmuch as the work of a contractor is temporary and keeps on shifting from place to place, it cannot be termed an establishment. The lower appellate court has in this connection referred to only a few of the meanings of the word 'establishment'. Having looked at the several dictionary meanings of the word 'establishment'. I am unable to say that permanency of an organisation is necessary for its being termed an establishment. The work carried on by the plaintiff was, in my opinion, clearly an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) (g) of the Payment of Wages Act, and that being so the defendant-appellant was entitled to make a claim before the authority appointed under that Act for recovery of wages. 5. With regard to the point about the (territorial jurisdiction of the authority (under the Payment of Wages Act, the Inability for payment of wages, would ; arise at the place where the wages are paid or payable. In the absence of anything to the contrary, it must be presumed that the wages were payable at the place where the plaintiff-respondent resided or at his office from where he controlled his business and those undisputedly were at Kirtinagar and Muni Ki Reti, in the district of Tehri Garhwal. 6. The appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside. The plaintiff's suit shall stand dismissed with costs throughout.