JUDGMENT K. N. Seth, J. - This petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, dated 14 May 1976, by which he imposed an additional penalty of Rs. 2,420 against the petitioner. 2. It appears that respondent 2 made an application to the Prescribed Authority for payment of wages for the period 1 February 1975 to 14 February 1975, which according to the petitioner was due to him. The Prescribed Authority vide its order, dated 1 November 1975, held that respondent 2 was entitled to his wages for the aforesaid period amounting to Rs. 111.50 together with ks. 10 as compensation and Rs. 25 as costs. The Prescribed Authority directed that the amount of Rs. 146.50 be paid by 30 November 1975. The petitioner did not pay the amount within the time allowed by the Prescribed Authority whereupon respondent 2 made an application to respondent 1 under S. 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner filed his objection and questioned the jurisdiction of respondent 1 to entertain the application under S. 20 (6) of the Act and also regarding the maintainability of the application. The Prescribed Authority repelled the objections of the petitioner and passed an order imposing a fine of Rs. 2,420, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to comply with the order, dated 1 November 1975. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fine could not be imposed by the Prescribed Authority as he was not a Court. We find no merit in the contention. Sub-section (6) of S. 20 provides : " If any person fails or wilfully neglects to pay the wages of any employed person by the date fixed by the authority in this behalf, he shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be punishable with an additional fine which may extend to fifty rupees for each day for which such failure or neglect continues." 4. Under Sub-sec. (6) power to impose fane has been conferred on the Prescribed Authority and not on any Court or any other authority. Since it is not disputed that there was a default in payment of the wages, etc., as directed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner rendered itself liable to pay the fine. 5. It was further contended that: Sub-sec. (6) power to impose fane has been conferred on the Prescribed Authority and not on any Court or any other authority. Since it is not disputed that there was a default in payment of the wages, etc., as directed by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner rendered itself liable to pay the fine. 5. It was further contended that: Sub-sec. (6) used the expression " additional fine" indicating thereby that unless earlier a fine had been imposed, action could not be taken under Sub-sec. (6) of S. 20 of the Act. This argument is also untenable. Section 15 lays down the powers of the Prescribed Authority while deciding a claim arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims. While deciding the application under S. 15, if circumstances justify, the Prescribed Authority is competent to impose fine. The use of the words " additional fine" in Sub-sec. (6) of S. 20 has to be read keeping in view the earlier provisions of the Act. We are not prepared to accept that unless fine had been imposed on the petitioner earlier, an additional fine under Sub-sec. (6) of the Act could not be imposed. 6. In our opinion, the view taken by the Prescribed Authority that since the petitioner had committed default in payment of wages as directed by it he was liable to pay an additional fine suffers from no legal infirmity justifying interference by this Court. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.