The present petitioner is a Workers' Union and represents the workmen of M/S. French Motor Car Company Limited, Dispur, Guwahati. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Add­itional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati, an authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for short the Act, on behalf of 29 workmen claiming pay from 13.5.74 to 31.5.74 and also Variable D.A. for the year 1973 payable in 1974. The petition was allowed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and an appeal as provided under the Act was filed before the learned District Judge, Guwahati who is an appellate authority under the Act. The appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge and hence the present application. 2. Being conscious of the legal position that power of this Re-visional Court is limited as this Court can only examine whether there was any jurisdictional error, Mr. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one point that the appellate judgment is liable to be quashed as it is perverse and .based op wrong int­erpretation of the law. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no jurisdictional error, and judgment of the appellate Court is not liable to be disturbed. 3. It was faintly urged that the appellate Court constituted under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court as the said appellate Court ii a Court constituted under a Special Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Sailendra Kumar Dutta vs. General Manager' Gauhati Refinery, 197) ALR 251 set aside the order of the District Judge passed under section 17 (1-A) of the Payment of Wages Act by exercising powers U/S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the question of exercising revisional power by the High Court over the appellate Court under the Payment of Wages Act did not come up specifically before the said Division Bench but from the final order passed by the Court it follows that the said appellate Court is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. According to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act Small Causes Court in a Presidency Town and elsewhere the District Court is the appellate Authority. According to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act Small Causes Court in a Presidency Town and elsewhere the District Court is the appellate Authority. Both the Courts are subordinate to the High Court, and as such, I am of the firm opinion that High Court by exercising revisional powers under section US CPC can correct any error of jurisdiction committed by the said appellate Court. 4. There is no dispute that on 13th, 14th and 15th May, 1974 the employees, that is the members of the present petitioner adopted the principle of 'go slow' and also resorted to strike. In other words, they did not work and on the principle of 'no work no pay', the management was justified in deducting their pay for the aforesaid period of three days. Mr. Baruah has urged that as the 'go slow' principle or the strike was not illegal, the employees are entitled to get their wages for the said period. This contention of Mr. Baruah is not acceptable, inasmuch as, the Court constituted under the Payment of Wages Act is not competent to examine whether the 'go slow' policy or the strike was illegal or not. On the other hand, their wages can be deducted as they were absent from duty in view of the provisions contained in clause (b) of sub­section (2) of section 7 of the Act. I am, therefore, of the opin­ion that the findings of the learned lower Court on this count is legal and proper. 5. The petitioners are claiming variable D.A, for the year 1973 payable in April, 1974. From the judgment of the authority, namely, the Additional Deputy Commissioner I find that variable D.A. was payable after the end of the year. From the judgment of both the Courts it is clear that there was a dispute regarding payment of such variable D. A. as the alleged agreement has been denied by the management. That apart this matter was also referred to conciliation proceeding and the management ultimately did not appear before the said proceeding. The Wage Court is not at all competent to determine whether variable D.A. under the agreement is payable to any workmen this being a subject matter for the Court constitution under Industrial Disputes Act. That apart this matter was also referred to conciliation proceeding and the management ultimately did not appear before the said proceeding. The Wage Court is not at all competent to determine whether variable D.A. under the agreement is payable to any workmen this being a subject matter for the Court constitution under Industrial Disputes Act. In Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjaia vs. Surajmal Mehta and another (1969) 1 LLJ 762 the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the Wage Court is to entertain application only in two items of cases, namely, of deductions and fine not authorised under sections 7 to 32 and' of r delay in payment of wages beyond the wage-periods fixed under section 4 and the time of payment laid down in section 5. ; The question whether the employees are entitled to get variable D.A. or hot cannot be treated as deductions, and as such, the Wage Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this claim. So the finding of the learned lower appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Now let me consider non-payment of wages for 16 days. The following facts are not disputed : The Workmen reported for duty, but they were asked to execute a guarantee bond before they could be allowed to resume their- duties by the management. In the guarantee bond it was stated that after resumption of duty the employees would not resort to strike of any sort. On the face of it asking for such an undertaking before allowing any employee to resume their work is clearly an unfare labour practice. So the employees were justified in refusing to give this undertaking. An, employer can deduct the wages U/S 7 (2) (b) of the Act for absence from duty. Absence from duty by an employee must be of his own volition and it cannot cover his absence when he is forced by circumstances created by the employer from carrying out his duty. In the case in hand as the absence of the employees was not voluntary, inasmuch as, they were not allowed to resume their work without signing the guarantee bond no deduction can be made under the Act. 7. The learned District Judge while considering this question has taken note of extraneous matter not relevant for the present issue. In the case in hand as the absence of the employees was not voluntary, inasmuch as, they were not allowed to resume their work without signing the guarantee bond no deduction can be made under the Act. 7. The learned District Judge while considering this question has taken note of extraneous matter not relevant for the present issue. Learned District Judge has observed, "Even if such an undertaking is given that will be against the status and in this sense such undertaking also cannot help the employer, to avoid strike. I think the Union of the workmen was quite enlightened, to such thing and under no circumstances such guarantee bond could be a clog, against the resuming of the duties by the workmen ". In my opinion, this is not at all relevant as the employer refused to allow the workmen to resume their duties. I, therefore, hold that the pres­ent workmen numbering 29 shall be entitled to pay for 16 (sixteen) days and accordingly the order of the learned District Judge stands modified. In the result, I hold that the present petition is liable to be allowed to the extent that the 29 workmen belonging to the petitioners' Union shall be entitled get wages for 16 (sixteen) days. The petition is partly allowed.