A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is to an order dated april 9, 1999 (Annexure J), passed by a competent authority (Labour Court, Ratlam)under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is an establishment to which the provisions of Minimum Wages Act applies. On June 5, 1995, an inspection was carried out in the business premises of petitioner with a view to find out whether petitioner is following the requirement of Act by paying wages to its employees. Since it was found that the petitioner is not following and hence an application was made by an Inspector under section 20 (2) (3) of the Act before the Authority (Labour Court, Ratlam ). The petitioner was noticed and an inquiry into the allegations as to whether petitioner is liable to pay the minimum wages to certain employees working in the establishment and if so how much were gone into, evidence of parties including those employees who were aggrieved. Eventually by impugned order dated April 9, 1999 (Annexure j) the authority found as a fact that petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 45,376. 00together with interest. It is this order which is impugned in this writ. ( 3 ) HEARD Shri A. S. Dhaaru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukatil learned Government Advocate for respondents. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no substance in the petition, nor in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE only submission that was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking the impugned order was that the report of inspection was not given to petitioner and hence, the whole order becomes bad. I do not agree as the argument has no substance whatsoever. Indeed the application is filed by the Inspector under section 20 (2) (3) before the Authority, against the petitioner, the petitioner has a right to file reply and lead evidence on facts. The Authority then decide the case on what is filed and evidence led by the parties. I do not agree as the argument has no substance whatsoever. Indeed the application is filed by the Inspector under section 20 (2) (3) before the Authority, against the petitioner, the petitioner has a right to file reply and lead evidence on facts. The Authority then decide the case on what is filed and evidence led by the parties. In this case, there was full trial, evidence was led, petitioner participated in the inquiry and then it was held that petitioner has not made the payment to certain employees mentioned in the Schedule as per the provisions of the Act and hence, direction was given to deposit the outstanding to enable it to be distributed to those for whom the direction is given. ( 6 ) THE conclusion arrived at by the authority is based on factual inquiry. It was gone into in detail. The impugned order running into six pages takes into account the case of each employee who were aggrieved and not paid their due remuneration. Petitioner has infact no case against them. The submission that a copy of report was not given thus has no substance in view of the detailed inquiry conducted which did not really result in any prejudice. The report is only for initiating the proceedings. It is not a case that demand in question is sent directly on some report as such. When the petitioner was afforded full opportunity before the statutory authority to contest the case, and lead evidence, he then is quite aware as to what he has to do and contest. ( 7 ) TO sum up, I find no merit in the writ, nor I find any infirmity in the impugned order. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. .