' The revision captioned above gives information that the orders, dated 15th April, 1982 and 5th February, 1983 are void. The player is to set aside the same.
2. The petitioner claimed wages for weekly holidays. The respondent treats him as an intermittent worker and thus does not allow him weekly holidays. The petitioner claims to be continuous worker and since no weekly rests are allowed to him, he claims overtime wages for the said days. This is not the case of the petitioner that he was ever allowed weekly rest and that afterwards was denied.
Unless he gets a declaration that he is a continuous worker and is entitled to rest and if rest is not given, he is entitled to wages for overtime, he cannot go to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to give a declaration that a particular category of worker is or is not a continuous worker. Since the petitioner is not being treated as a continuous worker unless a declaration is issued by some competent authority to treat him as such, he neither can claim rest nor can say that wages not paid to him for those days amounts to deduction of wages. Needless to say that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction only when right to get wages is admitted or have declared by some competent authority and yet deduction is made which is not warranted by the Payment of Wages Act. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly observed that no question of deducted or delayed wages arises and, therefore, the Authority had no jurisdiction. In the capacity of revisional authority from an order passed either under section 15 or section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, it is not within my jurisdiction to say whether the petitioner is or is not a continuous worker. So only this much can be said at this stage that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.