Ali Ahamad, J.

1. The prayer in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash Annexure "6" an order dated 29-8-1977 passed by respondent No. 1 by which he directed the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs. 535.50 P. to respondent No. 3 under different counts.

2. Shortly stated, facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Sec.20 of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before respondent No. 1 saying inter alia, that he was an agricultural labour of the petitioner and worked as such for four years beginning from June, 1972 to September, 1976. Further according to him, he was paid rupees two per day as against the prescribed wages of Rs. 4.50 per day and Re. 1 for meal everyday. He also claimed that he was entitled to bonus at the rate of 1 quintal of paddy per year. The petitioner appeared and contested the claim made by respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner respondent No. 3 never worked as his labour and as such there was no question of making payment less than the prescribed wages. The fact that an agricultural labour was entitled to get bonus under the Act was also challenged.

3. Respondent No. 3, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, held that respondent No. 3 did work as an agricultural labour under the petitioner for four years. It also held that respondent No. 3 was paid only Rs. 2 per day as against Rs. 4,50, Further according to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3 was not given meal or Re. 1 per day in lieu of meal. It, therefore, allowed the claim of respondent No. 3 to the extent of Rs. 256.60 P. towards arrears of wages for 103 days. It also allowed Rs. 103 in lieu of one meal per day at the rate of Re. I per meal. Respondent No. 1 was of the opinion that an agriculture labour was entitled to bonus also, but the quantum of which was 1 1/2 quintals of paddy every year. It, therefore, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 150 as bonus for the year 1975-76 to respondent No. 3. It also allowed Rs. 25 as compensation to respondent No. 3 on account of delayed payment of prescribed wages. The petitioner in these circumstances has come to this Court challenging the order as contained in Annexure "6".

4. Mr. J. Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner first urged that the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 3 was an agricultural labour of the petitioner is erroneous and as such the direction to pay Rs. 535.50 P. to respondent No. 3 was bad. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 on a consideration of the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that respondent No. 3 was the agricultural labour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel could not point any illegality in that finding. It, is therefore, not possible for me to agree with Mr. Krishna that the finding on this point recorded by respondent No. 1 is erroneous and should be set aside. Respondent No. 1 has also on a consideration of evidence held that the petitioner used to pay only Rs. 2 to respondent No. 1 has also, on a consideration of evidence held that the petitioner used to pay only Rs. 2 to respondent No. 3. There is no illegality in this finding The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that respondent No. 3 is entitled to Rs. 2.50 per day towards arrears of wages and Re. 1 per day as costs of one meal. The direction, therefore, is that respondent No. 3 is entitled to Rs. 2.50 per day towards arrears of wages and Re. 1 per day as costs of one meal. The direction, therefore, to pay Rs. 257.50 as arrears of wages and Rs. 103 as the costs of meal for meal for 103 days is quite correct and justified.

5. Mr. Krishna, next contended that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to direct payment of Rs. 150 towards bonus for the agriculture years 1976-75. It appeals that respondent No. 1 granted bonus on the basis of notification dated 10th February, 1975 issued by the St