JUDGMENT Satyeshwar Roy, J. - The suit was filed by Prabhu Dayal Agarwal (Agarwal for short) who died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were substituted. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. 2. Originally the relief prayed for was of cancellation of certificate case no. 32/RLC 67/68 (Regional Labour Commissioner : Central; Vs. Prabhu Dayal Agarwala) pending in the court of defendant no. 2, on the ground that the amount covered by the certificate had already been raid in full to the workmen concerned. Prayer was also made for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 2 from issuing distress warrant and order of attachment etc. for recovery of the certificate amount. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiffs-appellants were allowed to amend the relief portion. By the amendment the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are : for declaration that the order dated 25.5.1967 in L C. Case Nos. 105 to 107 of 1966 was without jurisdiction, void and illegal, for declaration that the aforesaid order dated 25.5.1967 was obtained fraudulently, for a declaration that the certificate case referred above is null and void and the plaintiffs were not liable to pay any part of the certificate amount. Prayer was also made for permanent injunction in the terms noticed above. 3. Three applications were filed by number of workmen against Agarwal, managing contractor of Gansadih Coal Company and others under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) for computation of benefits from 1.1.1965. These were registered as L.C. Case Nos. 105 to 107 of 1996 before the Labour Court (Central) Dhanbad. The court held that Agarwal was liable to pay the benefits. It further held that the workmen were entitled to the benefits as computed by them in the annexures to the applications. Copy of the order under section 33C (2) of the Act is exhibit G. On the allegation that the amount so computed by exhibit G. had not been paid, certificate case was levied as provided under section 33C (1) of the Act. Copy of the order under section 33C (2) of the Act is exhibit G. On the allegation that the amount so computed by exhibit G. had not been paid, certificate case was levied as provided under section 33C (1) of the Act. Agarwal filed his objection under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (Demand Act) in which, inter alia, he stated that the amount he was liable to pay in law he had paid and that the order of the Labour Court in the proceeding under section 33C (2) of the Act for payment of a sum of Rupees two lakhs and odd was wholly illegal and void. 4. Defendant no. 2 directed defendant no. 3 to verify the statement made by Agarwal in his objection. Defendant no. 2 instead of waiting for the report from defendant no. 3, passed order for issuing distress warrant on 2.6.1989. Against that, Agarwal filed an appeal. By order dated 13.9.1969, the appellate authority refused to say the order. On the averment that Agarwal had paid the amount covered by the certificate and on the assertion that till receipt of the report from defendant no. 3, defendant no. 2 could not have issued distress warrant, Agarwal filed the suit on 20th June, 1969, He, however, withdrew the suit, as that was filed without notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. After giving notice, he filed the suit again on 6th July, 1970. 5. Defendant no. 3 filed written statement. The assertion of Agarwal about payment of the amount due to the workmen was denied. It was stated that the order of issuance of distress warrant was perfectly valid. With reference to the order passed in L.C. Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 1966, it was stated that Agarwal had challenged the validity of the order in High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 522, 523 and 524 of 1967 and by orders dated 13.11.1967 as contained in exhibits 10, 10A and 10/B the writ petitions were permitted to be withdrawn as it was submitted on behalf of Agarwal that the errors in the order were of arithmetical and clerical nature and Agarwal would go to the Tribunal and get them corrected. 6. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was also challenged. 6. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was also challenged. The trial court held that the notice given under section 80 of the Code was valid. It held that the plaintiff was required to pay ad valorem court fee on the reliefs prayed for and sufficient court fee on the relifs prayed for had not been paid. It further held that Agarwal had failed to prove that the amount had been paid to the concerned workmen during the pendency of the certificate case. It recorded a finding that the suit was not maintainable as there was no pleading of fraud as required under section 46 of the Demand Act. On the basis of these findings, it held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. 7. The following points arise for decision in this appeal : (a) Whether the plaintiffs can be allowed to challenge the correctness of the orders passed in L. C. Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 1966 in view of exhibit 10 series, (b) When there is no pleading of fraud, whether the suit could be held to be maintainable under section 46 of the Act. (c) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 8. Point no. (a) : Applications filed by the workmen under section 33C (2) of the Act are exhibits 5 series and one order was passed in regard to those applications which is exhibit G. It was submitted by Mr. P. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, that the Labour Court could not have given direction to Agarwal for payment of bonus which should have been a subject matter of a proceeding under the Bonus Act as it was not a wage within the meaning of the Act. He also urged that the Labour Court was required to take into consideration the ex-gratia payment made by Agarwal to the workmen and should have deducted it from the claim made by them. The validity of the orders contained in annexure G was subject matter of the three writ petitions, namely C.W.J.C. Nos. 522 to 524 of 1967. By the orders as contained in exhibits 10 series, Agarwal was allowed to withdraw the writ petitions to enable him to steps for correction of arithmetical and clerical take errors before the Labour Court with regard to those orders. 522 to 524 of 1967. By the orders as contained in exhibits 10 series, Agarwal was allowed to withdraw the writ petitions to enable him to steps for correction of arithmetical and clerical take errors before the Labour Court with regard to those orders. The correctness of exhibit G. was, therefore, challenged by Agarwal in this Court in writ petitions and those were allowed to be withdrawn, as prayed for by him. With reference to exhibit 9, it was submitted by Mr. Sinha that thereafter application for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes in exhibit G. was filed and that was rejected by Labour Court by holding that the mistakes sought to be corrected were not of clerical nature, neither they arose from accidental slip nor omission. From exhibit 9 it appeared that application for correction of clerical error was filed by Bishwanath Rai, proprietor of Gansadih Coal Company. The order as contained in exhibit G. therefore, became final. 9. In view of the fact that correctness of the order was challenged by Agarwal by filing three writ petitions, he was not entitled to challenge the same again in the suit. 10. Point no (b): Section 46 of the Demand Act reads as follows: "46. General bar• to jurisdiction of Civil Courts, save where fraud alleged - Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every question arising between the certificate holder and the certificate debtor, or their representatives, relating to the making, execution. discharge or satisfaction of a certificate duly filed under this Act, or relating to the confirmation or setting aside by an order under this Act, of a sale held in execution of such certificate, shall be determined not by suit, but by order of the Certificate Officer before whom such question arises, or of such other Certificate Officer as he may determine: Provided that a suit may be brought in a Civil Court in respect of any such question upon the ground of fraud." From a plain reading of the section quoted above, it will appear that suit may be brought in a civil court in respect of any question relating to making, execution, discharge or satisfaction of a certificate or for the reliefs under that Act, only upon the ground of fraud. In whole of the plaint, there was no pleading of fraud. In whole of the plaint, there was no pleading of fraud. The relief on the ground of fraud was prayed in this Court by an amendment. In absence of any pleading of fraud as required under Order 6, rule 4 of the Code and proof of the same, Section 46 of the Demand Act was not attracted. 11. Point no (c) : I have already noticed that what was sought to be recovered as certificate was the amount covered by exhibit G. with which this Court refused to interfere when challenged in its writ jurisdiction as evidenced by exhibits 10 series. The only thing that the certificate court was required to go into was whether the assertion of Agarwal that the amount covered by exhibit G had been paid was correct or not. It was submitted by Mr. Sinha that respondent no. 2, the certificate officer, had referred the matter to respondent no. 3 (Regional Labour Commissioner : Central : Dhanbad) for enquiry. He urged that respondent no. 2 could not have rejected the objection of Agarwal and ordered for issuing distress warrant before receipt of the report from respondent no. 3. It appears from the record that Agarwal had moved the appellate court against that order and prayed for stay of it. But the appellate court had refused to do it. From section 46 of the Demand Act, which I have quoted above, it will appear that every question between the certificate-holder and the certificate-debtor relating to the making, execution, discharge or satisfaction shall be determined by the order of the certificate officer and not by suit. Whether the amount covered by the certificate had been paid or whether Agarwal was not liable to pay the total amount, claimed in the certificate, was required to be decided by defendant no. 2 and that could not have been a subject-matter of the suit. The Act provides a complete machinery for adjudicating objection relating to the making, execution, discharge or satisfaction of the certificate. Mr. Sinha relied on section 43 of the Demand Act in support of his submission that the suit was maintainable. The relevant portion of section 43 on which he relied is as follows: "43. Suit in Civil Court to have certificate cancelled or modified - The certificate-debtor may, at any time within six months- (1)............................. Mr. Sinha relied on section 43 of the Demand Act in support of his submission that the suit was maintainable. The relevant portion of section 43 on which he relied is as follows: "43. Suit in Civil Court to have certificate cancelled or modified - The certificate-debtor may, at any time within six months- (1)............................. (2) if he files, in accordance with section 9 a petition denying liability-from the date of the determination of the petition, or (3)............................. bring a suit in a Civil Court to have the certificate cancelled, or modified and for any further consequential relief to which he may be entitled: Provided that no such suit shall be entertained - (b) in the case of certificate for a demand mentioned in Article 1, or Article 2 of Schedule I, if the certificate-debtor Las not paid the amount due under the certificate to the certificate Officer- (i)............................. (ij) if he has filed in accordance with section 9, a petition, denying liability—then within thirty days from the date of the determination of the petition, or (iii) ............................." It will appear that suit for cancellation of a certificate or for its modification and for any further consequential reliefs may be brought only after the certificate-debtor has paid the amount due under the certificate within thirty day; from the date of determination of the petition under section 9 of the Demand Act. Here, ir1 this suit Agarwal challenged his liability to pay part of the certificate dues. In that view of the matter, section 43 is of no assistance to the plaintiffs. Further, from perusal of section 46 of the Demand Act, it will appear that right of the certificate-holder to recover any amount from the certificate-debtor shall be determined by the Certificate Officer. The liability was created against Agarwal by exhibit G under the Act and the remedy provided therein for recovery of the amount is under the Act. In pursuance of the provision of that Act, the certificate case was levied and tights and liabilities of the parties under the Act are to be determined by the Certificate Officer under the provision of that Act. When a right is created or liability is fastened under an Act, the parties must seek relief under that Act and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, Reference may be made to Premier Automobiles v. K.S. Wadke : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2238. When a right is created or liability is fastened under an Act, the parties must seek relief under that Act and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, Reference may be made to Premier Automobiles v. K.S. Wadke : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2238. I have held that neither section 46 nor section 43 of the Demand Act was attracted in this case. In view of all these findings, it must be held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 750/-.