1. - Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been claimed, all these writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order.

2. By these writ petitions, common order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Sikar (for short 'the Authority') on 9.10.2007 has been challenged.

3. It is a case where private respondents preferred an application before the Authority to allow them benefit of minimum wages. It was stated that the Public Health & Engineering Department (PHED) engaged petitioners under the Self Financial Scheme to be run by the respective Gram Panchayat for regulating water supply. They were engaged to work as Pump Driver. Since the petitioners were not extended benefit of minimum wages, they were left with no option but to approach the Authority. The claims so preferred by the private respondents were accordingly allowed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners State submits that respondents employees were never engaged by them. In fact, they worked under the Self Financial Scheme run by the Gram Panchayat. If at all they were engaged, then by the Gram Panchayat, thus no control by the State Government regarding their engagement and other service conditions including the wages payable to them. The Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as party respondent and, at the same time, ignoring the non-existence of relationship of employee or employer, impugned order has been passed by the Authority.

5. The Authority even failed to consider the issue of delay in raising the claim after taking into consideration provisions of law. It casually condoned the delay and maintained the claim though no cogent justification in regard to delay had been given. The Government, in fact, launched a scheme to regulate water supply and for the aforesaid, funds were given to the Gram Panchayat, thus the scheme was implemented by them only. Respondents employees agreed to work under the Self Financial Scheme and accepted the honorarium payable for it thus they were never treated as employee even by the Gram Panchayat. Hence, provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') have wrongly been applied in these cases. This was even in ignorance of the fact that the nature of work assigned and undertaken by the Gram Panchayat is not falling in the schedule appended to the Act to bring the claim with the jurisdiction of the respondent Authority. It is accordingly prayed that impugned order passed by the Authority in these matters may be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by the Authority. It is stated that mere implementation of the scheme by the Gram Panchayat does not change the status of the respondents as, for them, PHED remains the principal employer. Merely for the reason that scheme was implemented through the Gram Panchayat does not absolve the liability of the petitioners to comply with the statutory provisions of the Act. Thereby, direction for payment of differential amount has rightly been passed by the Authority. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Patel Ishwerbhai Prahladbhai and ors versus Taluka Development Officer & ors. (1983) 1 SCC 403 . The prayer is accordingly to dismissed the writ petitions.

7. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, same has been considered by the authority below in correct perspective thus needs no interference.

8. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record of the case.

9. First question for my consideration is as to whether private respondents are entitled to minimum wages while working with the Gram Panchayat as stated that no relationship exist with the petitioners. This is in view of the fact that scheme was given to the Gram Panchayat for its implementation and the same was a self financial scheme (SFS). The facts, however, remain that transfer of scheme for its implementation does not abs