JUDGMENT K. M. Dayal, J. - The present petition arises out of the proceedings under S. 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-company employed fourteen workmen in all. The company was closed from 1 October 1973, without any proper notice and the workmen claimed wages for the period they were kept out of employment. Both the authorities below have held that the workmen were entitled to the wages for the period they were prevented from working. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two questions before me. The first argument was that no wages accrued and only compensation could be claimed by workmen for the period they were not permitted to work. The second argument was based on the first argument that as no wages were payable, the authorities had no authority to adjudicate about the compensation. Its jurisdiction was limited only to the wages. I have seen the orders of both the authorities, and the appellate Court, I.e., District Judge, Dehradun, has considered the matter and relied on Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private), Ltd. v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd., 1976 (II) L.L.N. 176 . He hold that the workmen were entitled to wages for the period they were not permitted to work. I have looked to the cases. The Supreme Court held as under in Para. 17, at page 182 of 1976-II L.L.N. : " If the terms of employment confer a right of lay-off on the management, then, in the case an industrial establishment which is governed by Chap. V-A, compensation will be payable in accordance with the conditions contained therein. The sections dealing with the matters of lay- off in Chap.',V-A are, however, not applicable to certain types of industrialesta blishments. Where the number of workmen was only thirty, there was no standing orders under the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, nor was there any term of contract of service conferring any right of lay-off the workmen must be held to be laid-off without any authority of law or the power in the management under the contract of service. Such a case goes out of Chap. V-A. " 3. Such a case goes out of Chap. V-A. " 3. As the amount claimed by the workmen amounted to' wages and not compensation, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to determine the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that under S. 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central), the workmen were entitled to only compensation and not wages. A reference was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to S. 6 J of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, where it is provided that the provisions relating to lay off and compensation for the same did not apply to the industries where less than fifty workmen were employed. In the instant case, only fourteen workmen were employed and, therefore, the provisions of S. 25 FFF did not apply. The amount due was due as wages and not as compensation. Thus both the questions passed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disposed of. 4. In the result, the petition Is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.