JUDGMENT 1. - Surendra Nagar has filed this revision against the order of the learned District Judge, Pali, dated 18 January 1985, by which he accepted the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dated 9 July 1984, allowing a sum of Rs. 625 to the petitioner, and remanded the matter. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 3. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His first contention is that since the petitioner was working as store munshi at Jalore, the appeal against the order passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Pali, Sirohi and Jalore, head quarters at Pali, should have been filed before the learned District Judge, Jalore, and not the District Judge, Pali, and the learned District Judge, Pali, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In my opinion, this objection does not deserve to be opted for the simple reason that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any miscarriage of justice on account of the fact that the appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Pali, and not the District Judge, Jalore. In this connection, reference may be made to S. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if that section may not be strictly speaking applicable, the principle underlying that section will clearly hold good. 4. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the State of Rajasthan was not a party before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and had no right of appeal. It was only the authority responsible for payment of wages or in other words, the employer who can file an appeal and, therefore, the appeal filed by the State was not maintainable. It may at once be stated that although in the heading the appeal has been shown to have been filed by the State but it has been signed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division, Jalore, who is the employer of the petitioner and, therefore, the mistake in the filing of the appeal in the name of the State can only amount to a misdescription of the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal was improper or incompetent. 5. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the learned District Judge has found that even from the employees own evidence it appeared that he did not work in the whole month of December 1983, and it naturally required to be adjudged for how many days he worked and for how many days he did not work or was not allowed to work. This clearly needed evidence and if for that reason, the learned District Judge has remanded the matter, there should be no objection to it. Both the parties shall be free to lead evidence in this respect. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in this revision and reject the same. The parties are directed to appear before the Payment of Wages Authority, ,Pali, on 6 September 1986. *******