( 1 ) HEARD Shri. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioners.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 14- 10-1993 passed by the Respondent, by which the respondent has directed petitioners to pay amount of Rs. 65,700/- as compensation under section 20 (3) of Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said amount of compensation was to be paid within a period of 30 days. This Court has permitted the petitioners to deposit said amount in the office of this Court and accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioners states that in compliance of order dated 19-7-1994 passed by this Court, the amount of Rs. 65,000/- is deposited by the petitioners in the office of this Court.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are reported to be an establishment of Government of India and it appears that the establishment of petitioners was visited by Inspector on 5-9-1991 and he found that employees working with the petitioners were not paid salary as per Minimum wages Act and amount of Rs. 3,17,520/- was paid less to them for the period from 1-6-1991 to 31-8-1991. Hence, a show cause notice issued to the petitioners and as the amount was still not paid, application under Section 20 of minimum Wages Act was moved by Labour enforcement Officer before the respondent. In that application, after giving details, the above mentioned amount with amount of rs. 31,75,200/- as amount of 10 times penalty upon it was sought to be recovered. The present petitioners received notice thereof and opposed the application. The authority after hearing the petitioners has passed the impugned order. The authority found that during the pendency of proceedings before it, the petitioners have deposited amount of rs. 3,17,520/- in the month of July, 1993. As the amount was deposited belated, the respondent imposed compensation under section 20 (3) of the Act upon the petitioners and asked them to deposit amount of rs. 65,700/- as compensation.

( 4 ) SHRI. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioners states that application under section 20 of the Act was not filed within limitation and it was belatedly. He contends that by order dated 14-10-1993, the respondent has also condoned delay and has also allowed the application on merits. It is his contention that the authority ought to have passed two separate orders i. e. first condoning the delay and thereafter the second order quantifying the amount of wages or compensation. He argues that both these things cannot be done by one or same order. He relies upon the Division bench judgment of this Court in the case of achutrao Vs. Topaji, reported in 1963 mh. L. J. Note 93 and a subsequent judgment dated 6-5-2004 delivered in Writ Petition no. 1796 of 2004. He further argues that the workers were of sub-contractor and the liability to pay wages in accordance with provisions of act was that of sub-contractor. The petitioners being instrumentality of Government, deposited the amount but the defence in this respect as taken in written statement has not been considered by the respondent at all. He also invites attention to provisions of Section 20 (3) of the Act to contend that the amount of compensation can be up to 10 times the amount of difference between the minimum wages and wages paid only if the employer has not deposited said difference during the pendency of proceedings. He contends that in view of the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 20, as the amount was paid before the disposal of matter by the respondent, amount of compensation could not have exceed Rs. 10/ -.

( 5 ) I have perused the impugned order with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the authority has condoned the delay in the matter and has also allowed the application on merits on 14-10-1993 itself i. e. by common order, both these aspects have been dealt with. In view of the Division bench judgment of thi