M. C. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer challenges an order dated June 6, 1989 made by the Competent Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act directing the employer petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,032/towards wages for the period February 16, 1984 to February 15, 1985 to the wife and legal representative of the deceased employee Paltu along with a penalty of Rs. 70,224/- and an order dated February 14, 1994 passed by the IX Addl. District Judge, Kanpur dismissing the petitioners appeal against the first mentioned order. ( 2 ) THE deceased Paltu was employed in the Muir Mills owned by the National Textile corporation U. P. Ltd. He moved an application dated February 27, 1985 before the Competent authority claiming that he was employed on the post of a reeler in the reeling department and that he has been going for duty regularly in the reeling department but he has been turned back every day by the employer w. e. f. December 3, 1983 without providing any work. It was claimed that he had been made permanent reeler by the Labour Court-V, Kanpur in Miscellaneous Case no. 47 of 1981 by a decision dated November 26, 1983. It was alleged that inspite of several letters sent to the employer and the officials of the Labour Department the applicant was given no work. The application was opposed by the employer claiming that no wages had been deducted and, therefore, the application under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. Their case was that the workman himself was absenting from duty from december 2, 1983. Several letters were posted to him at his local home address but all the letters have been returned to the mills undelivered. He was also informed through a notice published in dainik Jagran dated March 9, 1985 to report for duty but all these efforts of the employer went in vain. It was also asserted that since the workman had not worked, he was not entitled to any wages on the principal of no work no pay. He was also informed through a notice published in dainik Jagran dated March 9, 1985 to report for duty but all these efforts of the employer went in vain. It was also asserted that since the workman had not worked, he was not entitled to any wages on the principal of no work no pay. According to the employer the workman was employed as a substitute in the carding department and was declared permanent w. e. f. December 16, 1983 vide order dated December 7, 1983 but he has been absenting from duty w. e. f. December 2, 1983. The Competent Authority held that the workman has been reporting for duty in the reeling department in terms of the award of the Labour Court dated November 24, 1983 and the employer has not taken any work from him and that the employer has been treating him as a workman in the carding department, while according to the award he should have been confirmed in the reeling department. On this finding the Competent Authority held that the workman was entitled to wages. The appellate Court has upheld this finding and has dismissed the employers appeal. These two orders are challenged by the employer in the present writ petition. ( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. I have heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) IT was contended that the employer after the Labour Courts order confirmed the workman in the carding department. The parties have not produced in the present proceedings a copy of the labour Courts order to show what it exactly was. It is, however, not disputed that the Labour courts order was that the workman be treated as confirmed in the reeling department. In the purported compliance of the Labour Courts order the employer passed an order declaring the workman Paltu and some others as permanent workmen in the carding department. A copy of the order dated December 17, 1983 by which this was done is Annexure 11 to the writ petition. It is also admitted that the workman did not report for duty in the carding department although he bad knowledge of the order aforesaid. A copy of the order dated December 17, 1983 by which this was done is Annexure 11 to the writ petition. It is also admitted that the workman did not report for duty in the carding department although he bad knowledge of the order aforesaid. In his statement before the Competent Authority, copy of which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition the workman had admitted that he was employed as a temporary workman in the carding department and that be was a substitute there. He stated that while the Labour Court ordered his confirmation in the reeling department the employer made him permanent in the carding department. He has also admitted that he was asked to work in the carding department to which he objected and he never went to work in the carding department. The finding of the authorities below that he was reporting for work in the reeling department is a finding of fact and is not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE above facts thus show that there was a dispute between the workman and the employer as to where he should work. ( 6 ) AS shown above, the workman was employed in the carding department. On that basis the labour Court ordered his confirmation in the reeling department is not disclosed either in the orders of the authorities below or in the pleadings of this writ petition. The employer was running a Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mill and no rule statutory or otherwise, is brought to my notice which may prohibit the employer from deputing a workman to the work of the employers choice. In my view the employer had a right to choose where it would post the workman as long as the status and category of workman is not changed. It was not even the case of the workman that he was unfit to perform the duties in the carding department where, according to his own admission he was employed prior to the order made by the Labour Court. Neither the Competent Authority nor the Additional District Judge has held that the employers order to the workman to work in the carding department was beyond the authority of the employer. Neither the Competent Authority nor the Additional District Judge has held that the employers order to the workman to work in the carding department was beyond the authority of the employer. The Labour Court might have ordered his confirmation in the reeling department but at would not take away the authority of the employer to transfer a workman from one place to another. Therefore, the absence of the workman from the carding department knowing full well that the employer has made an order to work in the carding department was unjustified and was the result of cantankerous and litigious attitude adopted by the workman who seems to have been intoxicated by his success in the Labour Court. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that when there was a dispute between the parties whether the employers order requiring the workman to work in the carding department was within its authority and the justification of the workmans absence depended on the determination of that dispute, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to award wages for the period of absence, Reliance is placed on E. Hill and Company (P) Ltd. v. City Magistrate, 1980 (40) FLR 362 in which it was held that where there is a serious controversy between the parties involving complicated question of law and facts the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to decide. Reliance is also placed on payment of Wages Inspector v. Surajmal Mehta AIR 1969 SC 590 : 1969-I-LLJ-762 in which the Honble Supreme Court observed that Section 15 (2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for payment under Section 3 are certain and as such they cannot be disputed. In the present case, the wages payable were disputed by the employer on the ground that the workman did not report for duty at appropriate places inspite of his knowing that the employer wants him to work at that place. It was observed that though the authority has the power to consider questions incidental to the claim of deductions but the scope of these incidental matters should not be unduly enlarged or curtailed. It was observed that though the authority has the power to consider questions incidental to the claim of deductions but the scope of these incidental matters should not be unduly enlarged or curtailed. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondent reliance is placed on Delta Forging Works v. Manik Karmakar 1977 LIC 207 in which it was held that where the employer asserts that the employee has no right to get wages for the period in question and as such total wages is refused to him, it was a case of deducted wages. Reliance is also placed on The Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd v. J. C. Mathur, AIR 1959 All 664 , in which also it was held that where the entire amount of wages is withheld it would be a case of wages deducted and Section 15 of the Act would be attracted. ( 9 ) THESE authorities are of no help to the workman in the present case because it is not a case in which the earning of wages by the workman is admitted. On the other hand, this was denied and the employer had raised a bona fide and serious controversy of fact and law which could not be settled in summary proceedings under Section 15 of the Act. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons recorded above I hold that the workman had failed to make out a claim that could be allowed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. ( 11 ) IT was also contended that there was no justification for the award of compensation equivalent to seven times of the amount of alleged deducted wages. Compensation can be awarded if the authority deems fit to do so and the compensation shall not exceed ten times of the amount deducted. Thus the grant of compensation is not automatic and the authority has to take a rational decision on the facts of each case. Where there was a bona fide dispute, as in this case, there was no cause for awarding compensation or atleast such heavy compensation. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.