JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - Both these revisions were heard analogously as questions of fact and law involved in both are practically the same. Both these revisions arise out of a common order passed by tpe District Judge, Balasore. 2. Petitioner is a workman initially appointed by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Rourkela in the year 1973 - and on his representation he was placed at the disposal of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Balasore. The Petitioner thereafter had been working under the Executive Engineer, Balasore Electrical Division. The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Division, Balasore transferred the Petitioner by order dt. 17-7-1985 to Baripada Electrical Division and before the Petitioner ;as relieved he remained on leave from 18-7-1985 to 22-7-1985. While on leave, he filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Balasore and obtained an ex parte order of injunction on 22-7-1985, restraining the opp. party not to give effect to the transfer as per the order passed in that behalf. The order of injunction was made absolute on 22-11-1985 by the same court. The present opp. party (Defendant in the suit) went up in appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction by its judgment dt. 4-2-1986. The Petitioner came upto this Court in Civil Revision No. 898/86, which was not admitted, but was disposed of on 21-2-1986 with a directing that the suit be disposed of within six months from the date of the order. The Petitioner has alleged that after the injunction was vacated, he has joined the post to which he was transferred on 24-2-1986. 3. The Petitioner thereafter filed applications before the S. D. J. M. Balasore under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act praying for payment of wages which according to him was not paid to him for the period during which the order of injunction passed by the Munsif was in operation. His claim application for wages for the month of December, 1985 was registered as Misc, Case No. 3/8/J and similar claim application for the period from 19-7-1985 to 30-11-1985 was registered as Misc. Case. No. 444/86. His claim application for wages for the month of December, 1985 was registered as Misc, Case No. 3/8/J and similar claim application for the period from 19-7-1985 to 30-11-1985 was registered as Misc. Case. No. 444/86. The learned S. D. J. M., Balasore, who is the authority u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, rejected both the application mainly on the ground that the Petitioner's action in not joining the post to which he was transferred was unauthorised and illegal and for that reason he is not entitled to wages during that period. The Petitioner went up in appeal u/s 17 of the said Act and the District Judge, Balasore who is the appellate authority by a common judgment in both the appeals (M. A. No. 31 of 1986 and M. A. 30 of 1986 respectively) rejected the claims of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is not entitled- to wages during that period and also for the reason that the Executive Engineer under whom the Petitioner was working having not been impleaded as a party, the claim against the Superintending Engineer is not maintainable. The correctness of these findings have been challenged in the two revisions mentioned above. 4. The periods for which the Petitioner claimed wages are covered by the order of injunction passed by the Munsif in the suit in which the Petitioner challenged his order of transfer. As already stated, the ex parte order of injunction was made absolute by the Munsif which was vacated in appeal. Therefore, the order of transfer remained suspended during the period when the injunction order was in force. It, therefore, follows that during the continuance of the order of injunction the Petitioner was permitted by the court to continue in the same post which he was holding prior to the order of transfer. Consequently, the Petitioner's not joining the post to which he was transferred cannot be held to be unauthorised because of the protection granted by the court. In this view of the matter the conclusion would be irresistible that the Petitioner was entitled to his wages covered by the period during which the injunction was in force. 5. Consequently, the Petitioner's not joining the post to which he was transferred cannot be held to be unauthorised because of the protection granted by the court. In this view of the matter the conclusion would be irresistible that the Petitioner was entitled to his wages covered by the period during which the injunction was in force. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in The Manager, M/s. Pyarchand Kesarimal Porwal Bidi Factory v. Onkar Laxman Thenge and others1, in support of his argument that the Executive Engineer under whom the Petitioner was working is not a necessary party to the proceeding u/s 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act inasmuch as the appointing authority who has the ultimate liability of paying the wages to the workman was not impleaded as a party. 6. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is no authority on the point in support of which it was cited. Their Lordships have observed in the said case that when an employer lends services to his employee to a third person, the employee stilt continues to be in the employment of the employer. The employee has the right to claim his wages from the employer and not from the person to whom his service are lent. As already stated the Petitioner was appointed by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Rourkela and his services were placed at the disposal of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Balasore on his representation. Whoever might have been the appointing authority, the Petitioner became an employee of the Orissa State Electricity Board and therefore, I do not and any substance in the argument that unless the Executive Engineer. Balasore Electrical Division under whom the Plaintiff had been working for the time being is impleaded the claim for wages of the Petitioner cannot be allowed. In this connection, the observation of justice Krishna Iyer in the case reported in. Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs. Balasore Electrical Division under whom the Plaintiff had been working for the time being is impleaded the claim for wages of the Petitioner cannot be allowed. In this connection, the observation of justice Krishna Iyer in the case reported in. Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others is worth mentioning, His Lordship indicated in the aforesaid case that State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or over-reach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. In this view of the Law the claim of the Petitioner cannot be defeated for non-impletion of the Executive Engineer. 7. In the application u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act the Petitioner had claimed penalty over and above the arrear wages. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly conceded that the claim for penalty was untenable in view of the language of the Section itself and, therefore, he does not press for the same. 8 In the result the civil revisions are allowed to the extent that the Petitioner would be entitled to the wages from 19-7-1985 to 30-11-1985 and, also for the month of December, 1985, but not the penalty. The authority under the Payment of wages Act would, quantify the amount payable to the Petitioner and the opp. party would be liable to pay the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed