K. B. N. Singh C. J.

In all these five writ applications common questions of law arise, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The land owners are the petitioners in these writ applications and have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, directing them to make payment of arrears of wages to their employees, who are Respondent no.3 in each writ application. Copies of the impugned orders have been filed as Annexure-6 C. W. J. C. Nos. 1570, 1571 and 1573 of 1977, and as Annexure-5 in C. W. J. C. No. 1572 and 1574 of 1977.

3. Respondent No.3 in each of these writ applications filed an application before the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, under section 20 (2) of the Minimum wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act,) claiming that they had been paid wages at lesser rate than the rates of wages fixed under the Act, by the writ petitioners, under whom they had been working as contract labourer. They also claimed value of food, overtime wages for working on Sundays and annual wages, besides compensation. The applications were registered as Minimum Wages Cases Nos.80, 81, 91, 105 and 106 of 1976. Copies of the claim petitions filed by them have been filed and marked as Annexure 4 to these writ applications.

4. In three Minimum Wages cases, out of which Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 1570, 1571 and 1573 of 1977 arose, show cause petitions were filed on behalf of the writ petitioners before the Labour Court, the Authority under the Act, denying the liability etc. and copies of their show cause have been filed and marked as Annexures 5 to those writ applications. In the remaining two cases, namely, those out of which Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 1572 and 1574 of 1977 arose, no show cause was filed on behalf of the writ petitioners and those cases was decided ex parte.

5. To appreciate on the questions involved in these writ applications it will suffice to mention the facts involved in the first writ application, namely, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1570 of 1975 the relevant facts of the other writ cases being more or less similar in nature involving the same legal questions. Arguments before us have also proceeded on that basis.

6. On the 24th September, 1976. Respondent no. 3 filed the claim petition before the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, under section 20 (2) of the Act, (Annexure...4) alleging that the writ petitioner appointed hi m for his agricultural work and has been taking work from him for the last over three years. He has been paid rupee one per day as wages, whereas the minimum rate of wages to which he was entitled under the Act, was Rs. 4.50 paise per day and fooding for one diem daily. It is also alleged therein that the writ petitioner took work from him on Sundays, but did not pay him overtime wages for working on Sundays. Respondent no. 3 also claimed that three maunds of paddy was payable to him as bonus every year. It is also alleged that the writ petitioner refused to pay the dues on demand which the claimant was entitled to get under the Act. Hence, a total claim or Rs. 2,127.00 was made, and ten times of that amount was claimed as, compensation. The other claim cases were also filed on the 23rd or the 24th or 27th September, 1976.

7. In the show cause filed be the writ petitioner (Annexure 5) before the Labour Court the petitioner challenged the maintainability or the claim petition under section 20 (2) or the Act. He also pleaded bar of limitation and denied the factum of Respondent no. 3 being employed as a labourer and asserted that the claim was bogus and filed because or old enmity with one Janak Singh, a money lender, whose labourer the said Respondent no. 3 was, to harass the petitioner. In the writ application, the petitioner has also stated that he bas about one acre of agricultural land and he carried on agricultural operations with the help