Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi in Claim Application No. (53)/2009RLC(R), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 59,370/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand three hundred seventy only), which includes the difference of wages and compensation in terms with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with the said Authority within 30 days from the date of the order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a licensed contractor namely, M/s Aryan Services Limited, represented through its Director Sri Jitendra Nath Upadhyaya. The petitioner obtained licence on 16.12.2008 under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 and used to take work on contract basis from the indenting organisations. It is further submitted that the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad, Incharge, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi vide his application dated 6/11 November, 2009 filed a claim application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the petitioner alleging less payment of wages to 5 workers (sweepers) amounting to Rs. 51,870/- along with copies of Inspection Note, Inspection Report, sanction order issued by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948cumRegional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi. It is alleged in the claim petition filed under Section 20 of the Act that the applicant during inspection dated 27.05.2009 physically recorded the statement of the workers in the premises of the Indian Institute of Natural Resins and Gums (formerly known as the Indian Lac Research Institute), Namkum, Ranchi. During the inspection dated 27.05.2009, the workers found working in the said Institute made statements before the applicant. Four workers signed the statements whereas one worker put his thumb impression on his statement. The learned counsel further submits that no such statement was recorded during the alleged inspection by the applicant as the said workers were not engaged by the petitioner as contract labourers, who claimed to have worked in the premises of the said Institute and as such, there is no question of making payment of difference of wages and compensation to the said workers. It is also submitted that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 committed a serious error in passing the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 in holding that the said workers have been paid wages less than the minimum rate of wages notified under the Act. The said Authority also committed an error in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 1500/- per worker as compensation. In fact, this inspection report filed along with the claim application itself is factually incorrect as the same does not bear any signature of the representative of the principal employer/Institute in whose premises the said workers were allegedly found working by the applicant. It is also submitted that the principal employer was not made party in the proceeding under Section 20 of the Act and without his presence before the Authority, the matter should not have been adjudicated under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 makes the principal employer responsible for payment of wages to the contract labourers in full and if the said contract labourers have not been paid full wages, the difference of the same can be deducted from the amount payable to the contractor working under the principal employer. The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has not appreciated the matter in true perspective and has held the petitioner liable to make payment of the difference of wages as well as the