S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This writ application is directed against an order dated 28-114981, passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Minimum Wages Case No. 3/80-81 and also the order dated 6-3-1982, passed by respondent No. 3 (appellate authority) and as contained in Annexure-3, passed in Minimum Wages Case No. 21 of 1982, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to give to the respondent No. 1 five maunds of paddy for arrears of minimum wages and five maunds of paddy as his crop in the land alleged to have been given to him as wages for a year of service as ploughmen.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioner he is small farmer having only 9 acres of land in total out of which only 8 1/2 acres is agriculturable lands. The petitioner has further asserted that the respondent No. 1 was the labourer of the petitioner and he filed a false case on or about 16-11-1979 before the Labour Inspector being an Inspector under the Minimum Wages ACL claiming therein that since middle of June, 1S79 he began to work as the ploughmen and in lien of his service, he was given a piece of land measuring 1 1/2 Bighas for his own cultivation. Pursuant to the aforementioned claim, a case was registered by the authorities under Sec don 20 of the Minimum "Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being Case No. 3 of 1981, before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 in his application enlarge his earlier claim so as to include crops of wheat allegedly sown by him on the same land belonging to the petitioner over which he allegedly harvested paddy crops forcibly. The petitioner having been noticed by the respondent No. 2 to file show cause appeared in the aforementioned case and show cause inter-alia stating therein that the said case was false. The petitioner has further asserted that in the year 1979 the entire block was a drought affected and was declared as such by the Government, but inspite thereof the respondent No. 2 proceeded to hold that the some paddy must have been saved in the fields arid 25% of the normal paddy must be saved, although there was no evidence with regard thereto on records. The petitioner in his aforementioned show cause denied that the respondent No. 1 was his ploughman.

3. Although the respondent No. 1 claimed merely the paddy alleged to have been grown by him on 1 1/4 bighas of petitioners land, the respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to pay difference of the amount of paddy to respondent No. 1 of the minimum wages and that was payable to him allegedly being 5 maunds of the paddy. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in the impugned order allowed more that what was claimed by respondent No. 1 and where for notice was issued to him and as such the same being violative of the principles of natural justice is vitiated in law.

4. By the impugned order dated 28-11 1981 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, the respondent No. 1 was hold to be "attached worker" and allowed the claim of respondent No. 1 in part. According to the petitioner, although no appeal was maintainable against the said order, but inspite thereof he was advised to prefer an appeal. The respondent (Sic).

5. Mr. Shivkirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the claim of respondent No. 1 was not maintainable. According to the learned counsel in terms of Sec.20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 a claim application can be filed only if the same is presented within a period of six months from the date on which the minimum wages became payable. The learned counsel further submitted that such type of claim is not maintainable under the provisions of the said Act.

6. From a perusal of the application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, it appears that although he was allegedly given 1 1/2 bighas land for ploughing the land of the petitioner, he allegedly in violation of the terms