Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway and by the Executive Engineer (Construction) (TPS), North Eastern Railways. 2. The order under challenge is Annexure-1 dated September 28, 1984 whereby the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad, who is the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 , decided the applications under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 20 of the Minimum wages Act and passed the following operative order against the petitioners: "After hearing the applicant the opponent is directed to pay the difference of wages as mentioned in the claim application amounting to Rs. 3,892.00 due to non-payment of minimum wages the employees have suffered hardships and mental agony. The payment of less than the minimum wages amount to treating the workers as bonded labour, crime against the society as well as violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8143 of 1981 between the Peoples Union for Democratic Rights V/s. Union of India, I am, therefore of the view that the ends of justice will be met by allowing compensation to the employees to the extent of two times of the difference. Accordingly I hereby direct the opponent to pay the differences of wages amounting to Rs. 3,892.00 as well as compensation amounting to Rs. 7,784.00. The entire amount of Rs. 11,676.00 should be paid to the workers within thirty days from the date of this order in the presence of the applicant". Mr. A.B. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction since the Labour Commissioner passed the order without notice to petitioner No. 1 who under the law is liable to carry out the award andnot petitioner No. 2. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the Indian Railways and the Petitioner No. 2 is an officer of the petitioner No. 1. 4. In the year 1972 a decision was taken to convert Barabanki-Samastipur Meter Gauge section via Muzaffarpur into Broad Gauge. Accordingly sanction of the President of India was communicated to the General Manager N.E Rly Gorakhur vide Annexure. In order to complete the aforesaid project a separate organization namely N.E. Railway Board Gauge Conversion Organization was constituted under the Chief Engineer (Construction). Accordingly sanction of the President of India was communicated to the General Manager N.E Rly Gorakhur vide Annexure. In order to complete the aforesaid project a separate organization namely N.E. Railway Board Gauge Conversion Organization was constituted under the Chief Engineer (Construction). The conversion of M.G. section between Muzaffarpur and Raxaul was not under the estimate. Since a major project of the State Government for construction of High Thermal Power station was going on at Kanti Near Muzaffarpur Union Government was requested to lay Broad Gauge Line between Muzaffarpur and Kanti as the Meter Gauge was incapable to cater to the needs of Thermal Power Station causing delay and hardship. Accordingly, the said request of the State Government was accepted and work to lay down B.G. Rail way line between Muzaffarpur and Kanti was entrusted to the construction organization under the supervision of Executive Engineer (petitioner No. 2) who engaged casual labourers of different grades to lay down the lines. 5. The petitioner No. 2 received a notice dated November 5,1982 stating that the Labour Eirforcement Officer (Central)- Respondent No. 2 has filed a claim application for realisation of Rs. 3,892.50 paise towards arrears of minimum wages payable to the causal labourers engaged by the petitioner No. 2. Later, second notice dated September 3, 1984 was received by petitioner No. 2 informing that the case would be heard on September 20,1984 in the Guest House of Barauni Oil Refinery, Barauni. The Head Clerk of petitioner No. 2 was deputed to collect the details of the claim. It is alleged that when the said Clerk wanted to know the detailes of claim, the Clerk of respondent No. 1 asked him to copy out the details of casual labourers and amounts allegedly notpaid. 6. The petitioners have annexed with the writ application a chart containing details of the workers and the amount claimed by the Enforcement Officer. The petitioner No. 2 received the copy of the award and order dated September 28, 1984 on October 15, 1984 calling upon him to pay the wages and compensation amounting to Rs. 11,676.00 within thirty days from the award. The petitioner No. 2 received the copy of the award and order dated September 28, 1984 on October 15, 1984 calling upon him to pay the wages and compensation amounting to Rs. 11,676.00 within thirty days from the award. It is admitted that the notice of the claim was issued only to petitioner No. 2 and the General Manager was not imp leaded The petitioners have annexed chart containing details of payment made to different workers and on the basis of this it is contended that the casual labourers were paid Rs. 13.18 p. per day which is much higher than Rs. 7.03 paise as claimed minimum rate by respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim application was barred by limitation and the delay was condoned without there being any explanation from the second respondent in not preferring the claim application within time. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice to Union of India was necessary although labourers had been employed by petitioner No. 2, it will be necessary to turn to definition of employer as defined in sec. 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . According to this definition, any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any schedule employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act come within the definition of employer. 7. There are few decisions of the High Court interpreting Sec. 2(e) of the Minimum wages Act. There is one decision of Gauhati High Court reported in 1977 Lab I.C 127 (Bisnupada Paul V/s. Sreedam Mandal) where the question for consideration was whether the Managing Director of a company making negotiations with the employees on behalf of the company will come within the definition of Employer. K. Lahiri, J. held considering the facts of that case that the Managing Director was an employer covered by the definition. I may quote para-37 of the Judgment where this question has been discussed: "The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not very strenuously argued. The argument sought to be made out was that the petitioner was the Managing Director and the company was not impleaded and as such the entire proceeding is bad. I may quote para-37 of the Judgment where this question has been discussed: "The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not very strenuously argued. The argument sought to be made out was that the petitioner was the Managing Director and the company was not impleaded and as such the entire proceeding is bad. This aspect of the case has been thoroughly dealt with by the authority in question. The petitioner claims that he is the Managing Director of the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Along with the petitioner one Swapan Kr. Paul was also added as an employer. The petitioner was made the main opposite party as he happened to be the Managing Director of Assam Bidi Factory Pvt. Ltd and that Swapan Kumar Paul was made the respondent as in charge of Jai Hind Bidi Factory No. 2. The authority has held that Jai Hind Bidi Factory is in fact owned by the Assam Bidi Factory. Nothing has been shown before me as to why the Managing Director of a Bidi Factory cannot be said to be an employer. The Company is represented by the Managing Director and he never disowned the said relationship. The Managing Director falls squarely within the definition of Sec. 2(e) of the Act. The company is to act through somebody. The Company employed the bidi makers and the evidence and findings of the authority is that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company and the employees were employed by the said company. The company cannot itself employ its employees, but must act through some body. The evidence on the point clearly indicates that this very Managing Director made negotiations, agreements with these employees as an employer or representing the company. Under these circumstance the Managing Director cannot come around and say that he was not an employer. I hold that the petitioner is an employer covered by the definition and nothing has been shown before the authority nor before me that he is not so. These are questions of fact and cannot be agitated in application of this nature". 8. Now in the instant case, the petitioner No. 2 it appears did not raise any objection that he was not an employer nor the employer of the casual labourers. These are questions of fact and cannot be agitated in application of this nature". 8. Now in the instant case, the petitioner No. 2 it appears did not raise any objection that he was not an employer nor the employer of the casual labourers. The respondent No. 1 the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) had, therefore, no occasion to deal with the question and he proceeded to decide the claim against petitioner No. 2 alone but this will not debar Union of India from challenging the Proceeding on the ground that it was necessary party and hence the notice should have been issued to Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway. 9. In my opinion, the petitioner No. 2 is not expected to pay the minimum wages from his own pocket and whether he had authority to discharge the liability of Union of India, although in my opinion the petitioner No. 2 will squarely come within the definition of employer but this question has not been considered by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad, whose order is impugned, it would be proper to remand trie matter to the said authority for fresh decision in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed and respondent No. 1 Regional Labour Commissioner (central) Dhanbad is directed to decide MW (Claim 30/82) in accordance with law within two months of appearance of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 who has not appeared to contest this application. The petitioners are directed to appear before respondent No. l within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent No. 1 the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad, should decide the dispute after notice to Respondent No. 2 it is, however made clear that if respondent No. 1 holds the petitioner liable to pay minimum wage the petitioners shall be liable to pay 12% interest on the entire dues. No costs.