Honble JAIN, J.–Heard learned counsel for the appellants. (2). The appellants have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 21.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Sikar, in Appeal No. 27/93, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, `the Act 1936) was dismissed. (3). The registry of this court has pointed out a defect that the appellants have not filed a certified copy of the decree. The learned counsel for the appellants preferred two applications, one is dated 2.6.2005 and the another is dated 2.3.2006, for waiving the defect regarding filing the certified copy of the impugned decree dated 21.5.2002. But, the second appeal under Section 100 CPC always lies to the High Court from every decree, whereas no decree is prepared by deciding the appeal under Section 17 of the Act, 1936 by the District Judge, who decided the appeal as an appellate authority. (4). The learned counsel for the appellants himself mentioned in the application that no such decree has been prepared, therefore, the same cannot be filed and requirement of filing the certified copy thereof may be dispensed with. (5). As mentioned above, second appeal is maintainable only against a decree, therefore, in absence of decree the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable. (6). It is relevant to mention that the present second appeal has arisen out of an application filed by workman-respondent under Section 15 of the Act, 1936, which was allowed and being aggrieved with the same an appeal was preferred by the defendant- appellants under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1936. It has specifically been provided under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, 1936 that the order passed under Section 17 (1) is final which shows that the order passed under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1936 is final in nature and no further second appeal is provided in it. It has specifically been provided under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, 1936 that the order passed under Section 17 (1) is final which shows that the order passed under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1936 is final in nature and no further second appeal is provided in it. The order passed by the District Judge under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1936, as an appellate authority, may be subject to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court but the said judgment passed by the District Judge under Section 17 of the Act, 1936 cannot be challenged in second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. (7). Consequently the second appeal as well as both the applications dated 2.6.2005 and 3.3.2006 are dismissed.