JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.7.1995, passed in P.W. Case No. 4 of 1991 and P.W. Case No. 75 of 1993 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,452/-, as deducted wages along with compensation of Rs. 20,904/- to the respondent No. 2. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that: The petitioner-Company is a Private Ltd. Company, registered under the Companies Act and is a contractor, undertaking fabrication work. The respondent No. 2 was a workman, employed under the petitioner as a Rigger since 1976: On the ground that he has been denied wages since June, 1990 to May, 1991 on false and flimsy pretexts, the respondent No. 2 filed his application before the Court below vide PW Case No. 4 of 1991 claiming from the petitioner/opposite party, a sum of Rs. 10,452/- towards deducted wages and a further sum of Rs. 1,04,520/- by way of compensation. On a similar ground that his wages was denied from May, 1992 to April, 1993, the respondent/applicant filed another case vide P.W. Case No. 75 of 1993, claiming payment of a sum of Rs. 10,452/- plus compensation of Rs. 1,04,520/-. 3. The applicants case was contested by the petitioner/opposite party before the Court below by filing show cause and by adducing evidence. 4. The case of the petitioner/opposite party in both the aforesaid cases was that the applicant/respondent No. 2 had quarreled with a co-worker and for which he was issued a charge-sheet and an enquiry was also conducted. He was retrenched from service on 15.2.1989, and he was also offered retrenchment compensation but he did not accept the same. On the contrary, he filed PW Case No. 113 of 1990 before the Court below raising an industrial dispute, against the termination of his service. A reconciliation proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, and in pursuance of the compromise, the respondent No. 2 had accepted a sum of Rs. 13,264/- on 15.6.1991 from the petitioner towards retrenchment compensation along with bonus for the year 1988 and leave encashment of 15 days. A reconciliation proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, and in pursuance of the compromise, the respondent No. 2 had accepted a sum of Rs. 13,264/- on 15.6.1991 from the petitioner towards retrenchment compensation along with bonus for the year 1988 and leave encashment of 15 days. It was also contended by the petitioner in PW Case No. 75 of 1993 that the claim of the applicant/ respondent No. 2 was not maintainable as he was no more in employment of the petitioner, since after accepting the retrenchment compensation on 15.6.1991 and, therefore, he was not entitled to any wages whatsoever for any period after the date of his retrenchment. 5. By the impugned order, passed commonly in both the cases, the learned Court below held that the petitioner was liable to pay wages to the applicant/respondent No. 2 to the extent of Rs. 10,452/-for the period claimed in PW Case No. 4 of 1991 along with a sum of Rs. 20,904/- by way of compensation. The learned Court below observed that there is inconsistency of pleadings on the part of the petitioner/ opposite party in both the cases in as much as while at one stage, it was pleaded that the applicant/respondent No. 2 was discharged on the ground of misconduct, yet at another stage, it has been pleaded that the respondent No. 2 along with other workers was retrenched on account of lack of work. It has also been held by the learned Court below that even in absence of specific pleadings, though the petitioner was allowed to adduce evidence on the point of discharge but the same has not been proved and established. However, the learned Court below accepted that the respondent No. 2 was retrenched from service but had conceded the date of retrenchment to be the date on which the applicant/ respondent No. 2 accepted retrenchment compensation in the month of June, 1991. The learned Court below refused to accept the petitioners claim that the applicant/ respondent No. 2 was retrenched on 15.2.1989 and though was offered retrenchment compensation, but he did not accept the same. The learned Court below held that the petitioner was, therefore, liable to pay the wages as claimed in P.W. Case No. 4 of 1991 from June, 1990 to May, 1991 holding that the same has been wrongly deducted from the wages of the applicant. The learned Court below held that the petitioner was, therefore, liable to pay the wages as claimed in P.W. Case No. 4 of 1991 from June, 1990 to May, 1991 holding that the same has been wrongly deducted from the wages of the applicant. However, the learned Court below dismissed the claim of the applicant/respondent No. 2, raised in PW Case No. 75 of 1993 on the ground that since after accepting the retrenchment compensation in June, 1991, the applicant was no more in service of the petitioner and, therefore, he was not entitled to any wages for the period, claimed in P.W. Case No. 75 of 1993. 6. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the learned Court below mainly on the ground that the learned Court below had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the legality and otherwise of the order of termination of the respondent No. 2 and has assumed the powers and jurisdiction of an Industrial Court instead of confining itself to the powers vested under the Payment of Wages Act. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the issue relating to legality of retrenchment falls exclusively within the domain of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the learned Court below could not have recorded any finding under the Payment of Wages Act that the retrenchment was in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence illegal. It is further argued that the learned Court below has erred in ignoring the specific pleading of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 was retrenched on and from 16.2.1989 and the evidences adduced by the petitioner in this context. Learned counsel argues further that the learned Court below has erred in failing to consider that neither of the cases was maintainable in view of the fact that the applicant/respondent No. 2 had raised an industrial dispute against the order of his termination from service and had also claimed wages from February, 1989 vide PW Case No. 113 of 1990 and in which, consequent upon a compromise, the applicant/respondent No. 2 had accepted the sum of Rs. 13,264/-towards retrenchment compensation and other monetary benefits from the petitioner. 13,264/-towards retrenchment compensation and other monetary benefits from the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that in the light of the compromise in PW Case No. 113 of 1990, it is deemed that the respondent No. 2 had admitted that he was retrenched from service on and from 15.2.1989 and there was therefore, no further scope for him to raise any further dispute for payment of wages which could not be due to him since after the date of his retrenchment. 8. Mr. Ramesh Kr. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, while controverting the arguments of the petitioner, would argue that the grounds advanced by the petitioner are totally misconceived. Learned Counsel would explain that earlier PW Case No. 113 of 1990 was filed in respect of payment of wages, which was denied to the workman from February, 1989 and in which, a compromise was effected and pursuant to which the deducted wages were paid to the applicant. The present two cases were filed for payment of wages for the subsequent months on the ground that the applicant continued to be in service of the petitioner and he was illegally denied salary for the months mentioned in the two cases. 9. From the pleadings of the petitioner opposite party in each of the cases before the Court below, it appears that petitioner has not come out with a consistent case as to whether the respondent was discharged from service following a departmental proceeding or whether he was retrenched on account of lack of work. The emphasis placed, as appearing from the evidence adduced by the petitioner, and discussed by the learned Court below, indicates that the respondent No. 2 was retrenched from service on the ground of no work. Though, the petitioner has claimed that the retrenchment was effective from 16.2.1989 but admittedly, the retrenchment compensation was paid in the month of June, 1991. 10. No doubt, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the jurisdiction of the learned Court below was limited to the extent of deciding the applicants claim arising out of deduction of wages or delay in payment of wages, but the jurisdiction of the Court also extends to decide upon all matters incidental to such claims. 11. 10. No doubt, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the jurisdiction of the learned Court below was limited to the extent of deciding the applicants claim arising out of deduction of wages or delay in payment of wages, but the jurisdiction of the Court also extends to decide upon all matters incidental to such claims. 11. The Court while deciding the dispute as to whether the applicant/respondent No. 2 was entitled for unpaid wages, had necessarily to enquire as to the period for which the wages remained unpaid. If the acceptance of retrenchment compensation by the applicant/respondent No. 2 is treated as his admission that he was retrenched from service, it was still a matter of enquiry for the Court below to ascertain the date of retrenchment and for this, the learned Court below can certainly seek guidance from the definition of the term "retrenchment" as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, which stipulates that a retrenchment will not be deemed complete,unless retrenchment compensation is paid to the workman at the time of retrenchment or before that. The learned Court below has therefore not decided on the legality or otherwise of the retrenchment. 12. Admittedly, in the instant case, the retrenchment compensation was paid to the applicant/respondent No. 2 in the month of June, 1991. The learned Court below has rightly observed that the retrenchment of the respondent No. 2 was effective from the date when the retrenchment compensation was paid to him in the month of June, 1991 and prior to that date, the respondent No. 2 was deemed in continuous employment of the petitioner and was entitled to the wages, which remained unpaid for the period prior to the date of retrenchment. 13. The petitioners plea that it had offered retrenchment compensation to the respondent No. 2 but the later had refused to accept the same has not been supported by any definite and cogent evidence. 13. The petitioners plea that it had offered retrenchment compensation to the respondent No. 2 but the later had refused to accept the same has not been supported by any definite and cogent evidence. On the other hand, the admitted fact that the respondent had challenged the order of his termination by raising an industrial dispute, suggests that the order of his termination from service was disputed and was referred to the competent authority for adjudication and till the date when the dispute was finally settled, it could not be said that the petitioners unilateral action of terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 was legally effective from the date claimed by the petitioner. 14. Furthermore, the petitioner has not brought anything on record to confirm that the respondent No. 2 had admitted to have been retrenched from service on and from 16.2.1989. 15. The learned Court below has rightly held that since the date of termination of service was effective from June, 1991, the respondent No. 2 is deemed to have continued in service prior to that date and for which he was entitled for his monthly wages. 16. The petitioner has refused to pay the wages for the period prior to June, 1999, disputing the entitlement of the respondent No. 2. This certainly amounts to deduction in wages and cannot be said to be a case of delayed payment. The learned Court below has shown certain amount of leniency in awarding the amount of compensation. 17. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of the learned Court below. There is no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is, dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount as directed by the learned Court below to the respondent No. 2 within one month from the date of this order. 18. However, there shall be no order as to costs.