Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order, dated the 28th October, 1972, passed by the presiding Officer, Labour Court, and an Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the, Presiding Officer'). By the impugned order, the respondent Presiding Officer has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. According to the petitioner, he is an Inspector appointed under section 19 of the Act. On the 4th June, 1970, he inspected the site and office of respondent no. 2 Messrs A.S. Dhupia and Company (here in after referred to as the 'Company'). From the Attendance-cum-wages sheets it transpired that the workers employed by the respondent Company were paid at a rate less than the rate fixed by the appropriate Government in exercise of the powers under the Act. The petitioner also noticed certain other irregularities. A show cause notice was, accordingly, served on the respondent Company. The defects pointed out having not been rectified, a notice, dated the 6th July, 1970, was sent to the Company requiring it to show cause, within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of the said notice, and to produce the wages register from January, 1969 to the 31st March, 1970 on the 21st July, 1970 in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna. It is alleged that the Company, instead of producing the records as directed, sent a reply on the 27th July, 1970, saying that the records were not with it but were with its Head Office and they would be produced only after they had been received back from the Head Office. On the 9th September, 1970, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court, Patna under section 20 (2) of the Act, giving rise to M.W.A. Case No. 169 of 1970. In the said application, it was stated that the Company had paid wages less than the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act, to its 20 workmen between the period 19th April, 1970 and the 15th May, 1970. It was also stated that the Company did not pay wages at the overtime rate to its 9 workers during the period 15th April, 1970 to the 15th May, 1970, details whereof were given in the annexure to the said application. In the said application a sum of Rs.99.20 paise was claimed as the difference of wages between the wages payable under the Act, and the wages actually paid, and a further sum of Rs.494.00 was claimed as wages for overtime work done by the workers. A further sum of Rs.5,420.00 was claimed by way of compensation in accordance with section 20 (3) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

3. The Company appeared and showed cause and contested the case on grounds, inter alia, (i) that the workers had been paid in accordance with the rates fixed under the Act, and (ii) that the application under section 20 (2) of the Act, was not maintainable, because the workers in respect of whom the claim had been made had left the employment of the Company long before the filing of the said application.

4. The respondent Presiding Officer, after referring to the materials produced on behalf of the parties in support of their claims of nonpayment and payment to the workers concerned observed that it was difficult to say one way or the other regarding the plea of payment taken by the respondent-Company. Thereafter, he took up the question regarding the maintainability of the application on the ground that on the day the application under section 20 (2) was filed the workers concerned had ceased to be employees of the Company, and assumed that the workers concerned had not been paid according to the minimum rate prescribed by the Act; but, in his opinion, as the workers had ceased to be employees of the Company on the date the application was filed, the application was not maintainable. According to the Pr