1. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated January 17, 2003 passed by the Sub-divisional officer Bank, as an authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, in case No. 2 of 1999 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,9457- towards claim of less payment of wages and Rs. 7,500.00 as compensation.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was appointed, as an executing agent of Scheme No. 5 of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna for the financial year 1993-94 for construction of well at village Goripur, falling within Chandan Panchayat in the district of Banka. For execution of the work Baigan Bhugar, Birhaspat Bhujar, Titu Bhujar, Phas Bhujar and Sattan Bhujar were engaged. The Enforcement Officer-cum-Inspector appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on enquiry found that the aforesaid five employees engaged for execution of the work were not- paid the minimum wages prescribed under Act. The Enforcement Officer further found that those persons were engaged from Falgun 1996 to 21/05/1999 and were paid wages @ Rs. 14,18 and lastly Rs. 20 per day although the minimum wages prescribed from 31/01/1998 was Rs. 39.70 and Rs. 51 from 1/04/1999. Accordingly, the Enforcement Officer filed application before the Authority appointed under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) under Sec. 20 of the Act inter alia contending that each of the employee has been paid less amount by Rs. 5,199.00 and hence prayer was made to direct payment of the aforesaid amount, along with 10 times compensation. Petitioner took the plea that minimum wages were paid to the employees and in support thereof various documents were placed on record. The Authority on 5 appreciation of the material, came to the conclusion that the plea put forth by the petitioner that he had paid the minimum wages is untenable and accordingly by the impugned order directed for payment of wages and 0 compensation.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma appearing on behalf of the petitioner attempted to assail the finding of the Commissioner in regard to the non-payment of minimum wages. The Commissioner on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that plea put forth by the petitioner is unfounded and for coming to the aforesaid conclusion, he had relied on the statement of the employees. He had also referred to the receipt produced by the petitioner and in view of the statement of the employees that it did not contain their signatures, rejected the petitioners plea. The Authority also held that the petitioner not only paid less wages, but in order to avoid payment, documents were created to mislead him. Said finding has been recorded by the Authority on appreciation of material on record which cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Verma, then submits that the dispute in the case is not in regard to the rate of wages but non-payment of minimum wages fixed under the Act and hence the remedy under the Act is not available. Accordingly, he submits that the order passed by the Authority is absolutely without jurisdiction. In support of his submission, Mr. Verma has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli AIR 1969 SC 1335 : 1969 (1) SCC 873 : 1969-II-LLJ-651 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the judgment, which reads as follows at p. 658 of LLJ:

"We have mentioned these provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, because the language used at all stages in that Act leads to the clear inference that Act is primarily concerned with fixing of rates - rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment for work on a day of rest - and is not really intended to be an Act for enforcement of