JUDGMENT Mishra, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Bihari Singh has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.10.84 passed by respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Agr.)-Cum Authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, whereby he has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1346.50 paise within the time mentioned therein, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, copy of the said order is made Annexure-1 of this writ application. 2. Briefly stated the case is that on 10.12.81 the respondent Labour Inspector has filed an application in terms of Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), to the effect that respondent Sharan Paswan was the labour of the petitioner, who has not been paid the minimum wages for the period he has worked. According to the labour he has worked for 40 days and the wages has not been paid to him. The Labour Inspector calculated the wages payable to the labourer by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1346.50 paise. Pursuant to the notice the parties appeared and filed their show cause. Objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the claim of the respondent firstly on the ground that the application filed by the Labour Inspector is barred by limitation. It is further stated that no specific period has been mentioned in the claim petition for which the wage is claimed. Accordingly, on such vague allegation the claim cannot be entertained. In support of the claim, the workman himself has been examined before the respondent authority. However, no witness has been examined on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent Assistant Labour Commissioner on consideration of the materials on record has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the amount, as mentioned above. 3. Mr. Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent authority firstly on the ground that admittedly the claim petition was barred by limitation and the authority, without condoning the delay, has passed the order. The second submission of Mr. Sharma is that the respondent workman has not been able to establish the period for which wages has not been paid. The second submission of Mr. Sharma is that the respondent workman has not been able to establish the period for which wages has not been paid. It is submitted that there is no relationship of master and servant and, accordingly, the order passed by the respondent authority cannot sustain in the eye of law. From the order under challenge it appears that prayer for condonation of delay has been made and objection has also been raised by the petitioner, which has been discussed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order. It is true that it has not been specifically mentioned that the limitation in filing the petition is condoned but from the discussion it appears that after taking into consideration, the explanation to the objection, the limitation if any deemed to have been condoned by the respondent authority. As regards the second submission it appears that it is true that specific-period has not been mentioned but the workman has claimed that he has worked for a period of 40 days for which wages has not been paid to him. The labourer being an illiterate person, it cannot be expected from him to give specific date and time. However, wages has been claimed for 40 days, which is apparent from paragraph 5 of the order under challenge in this writ application. Minimum Wages Act has been enacted for giving relief to such labourer and the claim, if it is otherwise maintainable, cannot be defeated on any technicalities like limitation etc. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records including the order under challenge. I do not find any illegality in the same. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed without cost.