Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.2002/4.7.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar in Minimum Wage Case No.31/2001 as contained in Annexure-2 and the order dated 4.10.2005, passed by the Additional Collector in Appeal No.1/2003-04 dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner and placed at Annexure-3.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the private respondents herein filed their respective claims with regard to differential of wages for the period mentioned in the claim dated 8.7.2000 before the Labour Enforcement Officer, Buxar. The claim put forth by the private respondent nos.5 to 9 contains all the details of their working under the petitioners together with the details of the schemes for which they had been engaged. On receipt of the aforesaid claim application from the private respondent nos.5 to 9, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Buxar, vide memo no.172 dated 18.7.2000, issued notice to the petitioners herein requiring them to respond to the claim set out by the private respondent nos.5 to 9.

3. The petitioners responded to the notice by letter dated 21.7.2001 and again on 28.7.2001 disputing the claims and prayed for dropping the proceedings. The petitioners were thus directed to produce evidence disputing the claim. It appears that no such step was taken by the petitioners.

Upon failure of the petitioners to cooperate in the proceeding, an application in prescribed form no.7 was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Buxar in the court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar, the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, with a prayer of issuance of a direction to the petitioners to make payment of the differential amount of wages to the tune of Rs. 40,227/- to each of the private respondents and with a further prayer of issuance of orders of compensation as deemed appropriate by the learned court of Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar.

4. A proceeding under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was thus initiated on the basis of a report of the Labour Enforcement Officer tiled before the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar.

5. It is a matter of record that although the petitioners, initially, filed their respective appearances before the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar, but thereafter absented from the same and thus in absence of any contest, the Sub Divisional officer, Buxar, vide order passed on 6.4.2002/4.7.2002, allowed the claim of the private respondents with further direction to the petitioners to make payment of Rs.9889/, Rs.8262/-, 6651, Rs.6645 and Rs.9236/- respectively to the private respondent nos.5 to 9 together with the compensation at the rate twice of the wages amount.

The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar in Minimum Wages Case No.31 of 2001 by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, Buxar giving rise to Minimum Wages Case No.01 of 2003-04 and which was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2005 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar was upheld, hence, the writ petition.

6. Mr. Najmul Hoda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, with reference to the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act, submits that the legislative intent of the provision, inter alia, is that an Inspector or any other person can only file an application after he has obtained permission of the appropriate authority under the Act. He submits that the word 'or' in between the words "Inspector" and "any person", appearing in Sub Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act has to be read in conjunction and thus even an Inspector is required to obtain due permission from the authority concerned. He submits that the records do not show whether any such permission was obtained.

7. Learned counsel further contends that in absence of such permission, it is only the private respondents alone, who could