Jasbir Singh, J.Brief facts of the case are that respondent was working as a Technical Operator-cum-Salesman under the "Integrated Bee-Keeping Programme in Haryana" being run by the Agriculture Department of State of Haryana at Chandigarh. One audit objection regarding non accounting of Rs. 11,000/- was raised on 16.9.1985. Respondent deposited Rs. 11,000/- without prejudice to his rights. It is also apparent that no enquiry was conducted regarding the said incident. Under these circumstances, respondent moved one application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the) against the petitioner with the prayer that he was made to deposit the amount in question and that the same be refunded to him. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground of maintainability and on merits also and the Authority under the framed following issues :-

"1. Whether the present application is maintainable

2. Whether the deduction is justified

3. Whether the applicant is entitled as per claim application "

Issue No. 1 was taken up as a preliminary issue and was decided in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence but ultimately again the claim of the respondent was declined by the Authority on the basis of issue No. 1 by stating that the application is not maintainable before the authority under the. That order dated 22.4.1988 was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh who reversed the order passed by the Authority and ordered that the respondent is entitled to refund of amount of Rs. 11,000/- which was illegally deducted from his wages. Hence the present revision petition has been filed.

2. Grounds of revision petition and order passed by the appellate court has been perused. Shri Jagia appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that the order under challenge has rightly been passed since the competent authority has erred while dismissing the application of the respondent on the point of its maintainability. This argument of Shri Jagia seems to be correct and justified. In the present case issue No. 1 reads as under :-

"Whether the present application is maintainable "

3. This issue was taken up as a preliminary issue with the consent of the parties. On 10.11.1986, the competent authority passed the following order :-

"Arguments heard on preliminary issue. After hearing the arguments by both parties, I am of the opinion that the preliminary issue goes in favour of the applicant. To come up on 8.12.1986 for evidence".

4. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence and while finally disposing of the application competent authority erred and same was dismissed on the question of its maintainability. This has already become final between the parties and order dated 10.11.1986 was never challenged, as such, the competent authority was never challenged, as such, the competent authority was not justified to dismiss the application on this issue again. The order of the competent authority dated 22.4.1988 has rightly been reversed by the appellate court by giving sufficient reasons. Under the circumstances of the present case, the order is perfectly justified and no case is made out for this court to interfere while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

5. In view of the facts stated above, revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order is to costs.