JUDGMENT Per S.U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent No.2, Arun Kumar was an employee of petitioner-school. His services were terminated on March 31, 2001. Thereafter, on June 23, 2004, he filed an application before Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which was registered as P. W.A. Case No. 60 of 2004. In the said application, he claimed that from April 13, 1991, he was appointed as O.S.D, in the petitioner-school and he was paid less wages than the wages required to be paid in accordance with the recommendations of V Pay Commission w.e.f April 1, 1996. It was staled that the difference came to Rs. 6,75,918/- (about Rs. 6,80,000/-). Ten times compensation was also claimed. 2. It has been held in U.P. Basic Parishad, Allahabad v. Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 2006-III-LLJ-417 (All) and R.D.S. O. Basic School v. Prescribed Authority, 1992 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1472 that Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not applicable to educational institutions. 3. Through order dated December 20, 2004, Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act condoned the delay. The only ground mentioned in the said order for condoning the delay was that since September, 2001 till March, 2004, respondent No.2 gave several applications to the management. This is absolutely no ground for condoning the delay. In any case for delay since 1996 till 2001 when services of respondent No.2 were terminated, there was absolutely no explanation. Against order dated December 20, 2004, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by District Judge, Bijnore on February 15,2005. I find that both the orders are utterly illegal as neither any ground for delay was taken nor any finding was recorded. The Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that filing repeated representations is no ground to condone the delay and it cannot keep a course of action alive. 1. C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining 2009-II-LLJ-l (SC) 2. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan 2006-II-LLJ-421 (SC) 4. Ultimately, Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allowed the claim of respondent No.2 through order dated March 25, 2006 holding that from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 2001 respondent No.2 is entitled to salary in accordance with the Vth Pay Commission amounting to about Rs.2,70,000/- (for this period about Rs.2,40,000/- were paid). Seven times of the said amount, i. e. Rs. Seven times of the said amount, i. e. Rs. 18,85,429/- was imposed as damages. Total amount directed to be paid came to Rs. 21,54,776/-. This writ petition is directed against orders dated December 20,2004 and March 25, 2006. 5. Recommendations of Vth Pay Commission when accepted by the Government are applicable upon Government employees. They are not applicable on privately managed educational institutions. 6. Disputed question of entitlement to a particular pay or pay scale cannot be decided in proceedings under Payment of Wages Act. The same principle which applies to applications under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act applies to Payment of Wages Act. It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court that there cannot be any adjudication under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act. In this regard, reference may be made to the authority Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Court, Commissioner 2007-II-LLJ-239 (SC). In U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Birendra Bhandari 2006-III-LLJ-969 (SC) it has been held that salary in terms of recommendations of Pay Commission cannot be recovered through proceedings under Section 33-C(2). 7. Moreover by virtue of Section 1(6) of Payment of Wages Act an employee drawing more than Rs.1600/- per month cannot make any claim under the said Act. Not only the claimed per month wages but even the per month wages actually paid to respondent No.2 were more than Rs. 600/-. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Petition dismissed.