Judgment 1. THERE is a co-operative society registered under the u. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 known as Sahabganj Krai- Vikrai Sahkari samiti Ltd. at Chaurahiya Gola, Gorakhpur, hereinafter referred to as the society. It was involved in a dispute whether one Shri Teju son of Durbal was its employee and entitled to receive at least minimum wages under the minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is a matter on record that a complaint had been instituted by the Labour Inspector before the Labour Commissioner/prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. that minimum wages were not being paid. This complaint was registered as case No. 240 of 1976 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh through Labour Inspector under the minimum Wages Act 1948 Gorakhpur v. Secretary, Sahebganj Krai- Vikrai sahkari Samiti Ltd., Gorakhpur. The Society contested this case. The labour Commissioner/prescribed Authority gave its decision on 16 December, 1976, in which it held; in effect, that respondent No. 2, Shri Teju was an employee of the Society and consequently he was entitled to minimum wages @rs. 186/- per month. This decision dated 16 December, 1976 of the Labour commissioner/prescribed Authority aforesaid in Case No. 240 of 1976 was not challenged by the Society, and thus, became final. 2. UNFORTUNATELY a reference to this order of the Labour Commissioner / prescribed Authority dated 16 December, 1976 has also not been appended to the writ petition and the Society makes a statement in the writ petition that "the petitioners" Society did not know that a case to the above effect had been decided against the petitioner. "In the writ petition the Society has given an impression as if the aforesaid Case No. 240 of 1976 was decided by the Labour Commissioner/prescribed Authority without the Society participating in the proceedings, and further this decision was not known to the Society. It is regretable that this impression which has been conveyed in the writ petition, is incorrect and may amount to suppression of material facts. This impression could have been avoided if the society had appended the decision of the Labour Commissioner/prescribed Authority, dated 16th december, 1976 as an annexure to the petition. The State of Uttar Pradesh in its counter affidavit has brought this decision on record as Annexure 'ca-1'. This impression could have been avoided if the society had appended the decision of the Labour Commissioner/prescribed Authority, dated 16th december, 1976 as an annexure to the petition. The State of Uttar Pradesh in its counter affidavit has brought this decision on record as Annexure 'ca-1'. A persual of the order of the Labour Commissioner/prescribed authority dated 16 December, 1976 reveals that the Society participated in the proceedings in Case No. 240 of 1976, aforesaid. Thus, contrary to any suggestion which is implied in the writ petition, this decision was not ex parte. The Society should have assailed this final order of the Labour commissioner/prescribed Authority dated 16 December, 1976, as this particular order is very relevant and germane to the issues raised in the writ petition. The suppression of this order, in the manner in which it has been done in the writ petition, warrants a dismissal of the writ petition and in the alternative, equity is now against the Society. But, this Court proposes to deal with the merits of the case also. As already mentioned, this order of the Labour Commissioner/prescribed Authority, became final as it was not impugned or assailed by the society. The order is binding on the Society. Thus, the Society cannot be permitted to resile from this decision given by the Labour Commissioner / 3. PRESCRIBED Authority in the aforesaid case. 4. IN the writ petition the Society mentions that it appears that the respondent No. 2, the claimant of the minimum wages; sought to receive a minimum wage of Rs. 186/- per month and in addition an arrear of Rs. 396/ -. The Society contends in the petition, that it objected to any claim of minimum wages and further objected for the grant of any claim for minimum wages for the simple reason that the respondent No. 2 was not its employee. In the petition the Society contends that in any case the Society was not carrying on any activity as is mentioned in Schedule I to the Minimum wages Act and this enactment did not apply to it in any case The Society contends that these objections were not considered by the Competent authority cum Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur. In the petition the Society contends that in any case the Society was not carrying on any activity as is mentioned in Schedule I to the Minimum wages Act and this enactment did not apply to it in any case The Society contends that these objections were not considered by the Competent authority cum Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur. while considering the application dated 4.1.1977 moved by the respondent No 2 and that the order of the Competent Authority aforesaid dated 5 November, 1977 is illegal and needs to be quashed. This order has been appended as annexure I to the writ I petition. The story in the writ petition is incomplete. The sequence of the proceedings is understood in its totality after reading the counter affidavit of the State The issues raised by the Society in any case had been decided by the Labour Commissioner in his order of 16 December, 1976. This order is not appended to the petition. By this application dated 4. 1. 1977, the respondent No. 2 was merely complaining that despite the final orders of the Labour Commissioner / Prescribed Authority dated 16 December, 1976 he was not being paid his minimum wages. The Society could not be permitted to open, de novo, the issues of the applicability of the Minimum wages Act 1948 or further to agitate the issue whether the respondent No. 2 was its employee or not. These issues had been settled by the order of labour Commissioner/prescribed Authority dated 16 December, 1976. Unfortunately, the writ petition was entertained in the absence of this order. No proceedings, order or issue had taken the Society by surprise, as is claimed in the writ petition. 5. THE order dated 16 December, 1976 has not even been impugned in the writ petition. What has been impugned in the writ petition is a consequential order dated 5 November, 1977 (Annexure 1) passed by the Competent authority- Cum- Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner; Gorakhpur. This order merely places on record that the Competent Authority had already adjudicated on the claim in Case No 240 of 1976 and that the decision having become final, it could not be reagitated on the principles of res judicata. The Competent Authority, aforesaid, further emphasises that the matter had already been contested between the parties and it cannot be reopened. The Competent Authority, aforesaid, further emphasises that the matter had already been contested between the parties and it cannot be reopened. In the circumstances a direction was given to the Society by the Competent authority to pay a sum of Rs. 575/- as with held wages in addition to Rs.792/- as compensation together with Rs. 25/- as costs. Having considered the matter in its entirety and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner at the Bar we are of the opinion that there are neither any error manifest or apparent, or any error of jurisdiction or any perversity in the order of 5 November, 1977 of the Competent Authority Cum regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 1. This order merely reiterates the earlier decision to which the Society was a party when Case No. 240 of 1976, aforesaid, was decided. 6. THE writ petition was in fact filed on material suppression of facts and incorrect allegations. In the circumstances, it is dismissed with separate costs to, firstly, the respondent No. 1 i. e. Competent Authority Cum Regional deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur or the State of Uttar Pradesh and Secondly, the respondent No-2 i. e. Shri Teju son of Durbal. The stay order stands discharged. A Copy of the judgment will be sent free of charge to the Competent authority Cum Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, to ensure that the decision dated 16 December, 1976 in case No. 240 of 1976 by Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum wages Act, 1948, Gorakhpur, is implemented immediately.