Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. The Union of India as usual behaves like a ordinary litigant which is evident from the fact that on 24.10.2000 when the matter was heard one Mr. N. N. Sinha appeared as a learned Standing Counsel and prayed for time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter several days have passed but no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner earlier moved this court in CWJC No. 1368 of 2000 (R) challenging the order dated 18.4.2000 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central Dhanbad directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 25,267.95/- as fine. The order was passed on the basin of complaint made by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central Chaibasa under the Minimum Wages Act. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the deference of the minimum wages have already been paid to the workmen. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Regional Labour Commissioner to consider the application of the petitioner relating to payment of difference of minimum wages and to pass final order. Pursuant to that the Regional Labour Commissioner passed the impugned order holding that since the difference of the amount was not deposited in his office, the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount.

3. The question that falls for consideration before this court is as to whether the Regional Labour Commissioner can take action for the recovery of the difference of minimum wages in such cases where employer/contractor namely the petitioner claims that the amount was already paid to the worker and particularly in view of the fact that no claim whatsoever has been made by the workmen. This court following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (2) JCR 226 held that the scope of the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act are quite distinct and different under the Minimum Wages Act, the authority under the said Act can take action only when it is found that the workers are not paid wages which is fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. If a dispute arose whether the difference of the Minimum Wages had actually been paid by the employer/contractor the remedy available to the workmen is under the Payment of Wages Act or under the Industrial Disputes Act or if the employer is an establishment then under the Shops & Establishment Act. In my opinion, the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the alleged difference of wages together with fine is unwarranted in law. In the event the workmen approach the authority under the Payment of Wages Act or under Industrial Disputes Act referred to hereinabove the authority shall decide the question whether the difference of wages have been actually paid to the workman.

4. For the reasons aforesaid this writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As observed hereinabove the workmen shall not be debarred from approaching the authority for payment of the difference of amount if it is proved that actually the difference of amount has not been paid or deposited by the petitioner.