ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue an order, direction or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 29.08.2018 in M.W. No. 5 of 2015 of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and unenforceable and pass such further or other orders.....”

2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a private company registered under the Companies Act and it is dealing with engineering goods. The company is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Employees State Insurance Act and it complies with all the Labour enactments. The company engages contract labour in terms of the Provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Rules made there under. While so, respondent No. 2 inspected the unit on 18.03.2015 and filed MW Case No. 5 of 2015 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Rs. 5,17,402/- along with compensation for workers engaged by the petitioner.

3. Respondent No. 1 initially passed order on 20.05.2016 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 31,04,412/-. Petitioner did not contest the matter initially. The order of respondent No. 1 was challenged before the composite High Court by filing W.P. No. 39493 of 2016. The same was allowed setting the said order and the matter was remitted with a direction to respondent No. 1 to rehear both the parties and pass appropriate orders afresh.

4. Subsequent to the order passed in W.P. No. 39493 of 2016 respondent No. 1 passed the order, impugned in the writ petition, without considering the relevant factors and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,17,402/- along with one time claim amount as compensation totaling to Rs.10,34,804/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Respondent No. 1 filed counter and contended inter-alia that as per G.O.Ms. No. 33, dated 27.08.2022, the petitioner establishment falls under the category of a Factory under Section 2(m) of the Act, with 300 employees working therein. Respondent No. 2 is the authority notified under the said G.O. conducted inspection. Accordingly, respondent No. 2, after inspection, filed claim before respondent No. 1 being competent and notified authority to deal with such claims. It is further contended that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised before respondent No. 1 in the claim proceedings. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Heard, Sri Koka Satayanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions in the writ affidavit further submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay the alleged difference of minimum wages as ordered by respondent No. 1. He submits that respondent No. 1 failed to see that the information furnished to respondent No. 2, at the time of inspection, was not correct. The figures mentioned in the application are not true and correct. He submits that respondent No. 2 failed to consider the statement signed and stamped by the branch manager of the SBI towards showing actual salary paid through employees’ bank account.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non-consideration of the statement and records produced by the petitioner as PW1 is illegal and improper. He submits that respondent No. 1 failed to see that petitioner is not liable to pay the alleged difference of minimum wages of Rs. 5,17,402/- to the employees referred to in the application and the respondents failed to appreciate that there is no dispute or claim from any of the employees working under the petitioner. He further submits that the claim made by respondent No. 2 on behalf of alleged beneficiaries i