D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tej Ram, learned standing Counsel representing the Prescribed Authority and the Assistant Regional Labour commissioner, Gorakhpur, the Respondent No. 1, Nobody appears for the Respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Artcile 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated January 4, 1978 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 20 (3)of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act. ( 3 ) ASSERTING that he was an employee of M/s. Jyoti Bin Company, Mohalla Basantpur, gorakhpur, hereinafter called the Employer: that for the period between April, 1976 and July 3, 1976 he was not paid full wages; and that certain amount in lieu of the overtime work also was not paid to him, Sri Ram Briksh, the Respondent No. 2 approached the Respondent No. 1 for direction to the Employer for payment of the dues. The petitioner look the stand that the respondent No. 2 was not its employee, and as such nothing was due to him. ( 4 ) THE Respondent No. 1 has arrived at the conclusion that the Respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Employer and the dues claimed by him were due and payable to him. Hence this petition. ( 5 ) THE controversy involved in the writ petition centres around the question as to whether the respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Employer for the purposes of the Act. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that the question leading to controversy is principally a question of fact. It is also not in dispute that there was evidence before the Respondent No. 1 to support its finding that the Respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Employer. However, he contends that the evidence before the Respondent No. 1 was not sufficient, and asserts that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on that score. ( 7 ) IT is well-settled that in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India the High Court does not enter into the realm of adequacy or inadequacy of evidence in support of the finding on the question of fact. It is not a case of total absence of evidence. ( 7 ) IT is well-settled that in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India the High Court does not enter into the realm of adequacy or inadequacy of evidence in support of the finding on the question of fact. It is not a case of total absence of evidence. If there is some evidence on record in support of a finding on fact the finding should not be disturbed. , ( 8 ) THE impugned order, therefore, cannot be set aside on the ground of the alleged insufficiency of evidence. ( 9 ) THE petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order/orders shall stand discharged. .