L. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE Executive Engineer, Rural Works division, Mayurbhanj has filed this writ application challenging the order in Annexure 1 passed by the learned Addl. District magistrate and Authority under the Minimum wages Act, 1948 in Minimum Wages Case No. 8 of 1995 directing the petitioner to pay arrear differential wages for the period from July, 1990 till February, 1994 for an amount of Rs. 90,05,640/- ( 2 ) THE Opposite Parties 2 to 68 filed an application under Section 20 (2) of the minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act for determination of the defaulted amount of wages and claimed payment of Rs. 9,05,640/-towards differential wages as well as compensation calculated at ten times of the amount due as (sic) of Rs. 90,56,640/- (sic ). The case of the said opposite parties is that they were engaged as D. L. R. /casual Labourers by the petitioner and were working as such in six engineering Sub-Divisions under different s. D. Os. and Junior Engineers. According to the said opposite parties, from July, 1990 to august, 1993 they were paid less wages than that was fixed by the State Government and accordingly a prayer was made for payment of differential wages. After filing of the petition before the Authority under the Act, notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner and on receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Authority and contested the proceeding. In the objection filed by the petitioner it was contended that claim of differential arrear dues as well as compensation were barred by limitation and that the same dispute having been raised before the Orissa administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 2615 (C)of 1994, the dispute cannot be entertained by the Authority under the Act. In the impugned order the authority under the Act not only condoned the delay but also allowed the application of the opposite parties on the basis of the documents filed before him. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order basically on two grounds: the first ground taken by the learned counsel is that the application filed under section 20 (2) of the Act was grossly time barred and could not have been entertained by the Authority under the Act. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order basically on two grounds: the first ground taken by the learned counsel is that the application filed under section 20 (2) of the Act was grossly time barred and could not have been entertained by the Authority under the Act. The second ground is that the same dispute being subject matter of Original Application filed before the orissa Administrative Tribunal, the said opposite parties could not have approached both the Courts for the self same relief. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that there was delay in filing the application before the Authority under the act, but the same was condoned on consideration of the facts placed before him. So far as Original Application filed before the orissa Administrative Tribunal is concerned, it was submitted that the said Original Application had been filed for regularisation of the service of the opposite parties who were working as casual Labourers and it had nothing to do with the payment of arrear differential wages. ( 4 ) FROM the impugned order, it appears that though the claim of arrear differential wages had been made for the period from July, 1990 to August, 1998, the petition was filed on august 18, 1995. Under provision 20 of the minimum Wages Act, 1948, the application claiming arrear differential wages should have been filed within six months from the date when such wages became payable. Admittedly the application was not filed within the period prescribed. It was contended before the authority under the Act that the matter was being adjudicated before the Labour Officer till june 3, 1995 and, therefore, there was no scope for the opposite parties to approach the authority under the Act for the relief claimed. Considering such submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the delay in filing the application under Section 20 (2) of the act was condoned. I do not find any illegality in the said finding of the Authority as the opposite parties were persecuting their grievance before the Labour Officer till June 3, 1995 and only when they failed, they approached the Authority under the Act on august 18, 1995. I do not find any illegality in the said finding of the Authority as the opposite parties were persecuting their grievance before the Labour Officer till June 3, 1995 and only when they failed, they approached the Authority under the Act on august 18, 1995. I am, therefore, of the view that the Authority under the Act had not committed any illegality in condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 20 (2) of the Act. ( 5 ) SO far as second ground of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the Original Application had been filed before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by the opposite parties for regularisation of their services. Moreover, there being a statutory authority under the Minimum Wages act to decide the question as to whether there has been payment of less wages or not, the orissa Administrative Tribunal cannot enter into the said question and take a decision. In view of the above, I also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the p tioner so far as it relates to the second ground. ( 6 ) ON perusal of the documents and the impugned order, it appears that the opposite parties have relied upon the letters and notifications issued by the State Government to their employer's offices. It was admitted before the Authority that all the opposite parties had been engaged as either D. L. R. /casual labourers by the petitioner through contractors. It also appears that as per the notification of the State Government published in the Gazette on December 31, 1990 different minimum wages have been fixed for different categories of employees i. e. high-skilled, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled with effect from January 1, 1991. The earlier minimum wages of Rs. 25/- per day had been enhanced. Referring to the said notification, the authority also found that though the minimum wages had been enhanced during the claim period, the opposite parties had been paid less wages. The authority also found that even though the opposite parties were engaged by different contractors under the provisions of Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, as the principal employer is liable to pay differential wages. The authority also found that even though the opposite parties were engaged by different contractors under the provisions of Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, as the principal employer is liable to pay differential wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince the Court as to where the Authority under the Act has committed any illegality or irregularity in arriving at such a finding. On perusal of the records, I also do not find any infirmity in the order. ( 7 ) I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the writ application is accordingly dismissed.