' The facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner was suspended. Later on he was reinstated but the wages for the period of suspension were withheld. The petitioner challenged the order before the Labour Court and his suspension was declared as illegal. He, thereupon, brought a petition to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of deducted and delayed wages and the Authority allowed to him the said wages plus three times compensation. The respondent went in appeal before the learned lower appellate court. The appeal in respect of actual wages was dismissed, but with regard to three times compensation was accepted and three times compensation was disallowed. The said order has been challenged in this revision.
2. The petition of the petitioner before the Authority was time-barred and an application for condonation of delay was given. The learned lower appellate court disallowed compensation for the reason that the petition was time-barred and the delay was condoned. The said order has been challenged in this revision claiming ten times compensation.
3. The recovery of the delayed or deducted wages is a right whereas the claim of compensation is discretionary with the Authority and in suitable cases compensation may be totally disallowed or partly allowed. It was the discretion of the Authority and, thereafter, the lower appellate court to allow compensation. An order not exercising the discretion in favour of a party cannot be challenged in revision, A unless it is shown that miscarriage of justice has taken place. Since the application was belated, therefore, the Authority allowed only three times compensation of the actual wages and the learned lower appellate court disallowed the total compensation. The ground given for disallowing the compensation appears to be sufficient. Since the petitioner slept over the matter and claimed wages and compensation late, the lower court was justified in upholding the order of grant of actual wages and setting aside the order with regard to compensation. Discretionary orders cannot be challenged in revision, unless there are special circumstances. The learned lower appellate court was, therefore, justified in disallowing the compensation. There is no force in the revision, which is dismissed in limine.