Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 11.05.2001 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi in Minimum Wages Appeal No. 7/99 affirming the order dated 18.11.1999, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi an Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, passed in ten cases being M.W.Case No. 37/1996 to M.W. Case No. 46/96 under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, whereby, the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,81,176/-as difference of Minimum Wages for the period 19.07.1993 to 31.12.1995 for the 24 workmen working under the petitioner no. 1. 3. The brief facts are that Labour Superintendent, Ranchi filed applications under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act on behalf of the 24 workmen for payment of difference of wages payable to them for the period 19.07.1993 to 31.12.1996. Those cases were registered as M.W. Case No. 37/1996 to 46/1996. On receipt of notice, the petitioners appeared and filed their show-cause denying the allegations as well as the liability to pay any amount as claimed under the aforesaid claim cases. 4. The petitioners further raised plea of limitation stating that the claim application filed was barred by limitation and further that the employment under the petitioner no. 1 did not come within the purview of Scheduled Employment, therefore, the authority concerned had no jurisdiction under Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act to decide the claim. 5. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, by his order dated 18.11.1999, allowed all the claim cases directing the petitioners to deposit a total sum of Rs.3,81,176/-towards the difference of wages payable to 24 workmen. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi i.e. the appellate authority under Section 20(6) of the Minimum Wages Act which was registered as M.W. Appeal NO. 7/1999. The appellate Court, by his order dated 11.05.2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal by affirming the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. Mr. 7/1999. The appellate Court, by his order dated 11.05.2001, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal by affirming the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the point of limitation raised by the petitioner that the application for claim filed on behalf of 24 workmen were barred by limitation, was neither considered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner nor by the appellate authority and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. He further submitted that though the petitioner specifically raised objection that some of the workmen for whom the claim application was filed, never worked with the petitioner no. 1 and some of them worked only as part time but neither the Assistant Labour Commissioner nor the appellate authority examined the individual cases of the concerned workmen. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law on this ground alone. Mr. Das lastly submitted that the employment of the petitioner does not come under the purview of scheduled employment and, therefore, the claim applications were not maintainable. 7. So far the point of limitation is concerned, it appears from the impugned order that an application for condonation of delay was filed and the concerned authority even condoned the delay in filing the application, therefore, there is no merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the claims were time barred. So far the point that the employment under the petitioner does not within the purview of scheduled employment, in my view this point is also liable to be rejected as the same has no merit in view of the fact that in the schedule item no. 48 added by the Government of Bihar, clearly speaks that the employment in religious institutions comes under the purview of schedule employment. The petitioner no. 1 claim that it is a religious institution and, therefore, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the petitioner in this regard. 8. 48 added by the Government of Bihar, clearly speaks that the employment in religious institutions comes under the purview of schedule employment. The petitioner no. 1 claim that it is a religious institution and, therefore, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the petitioner in this regard. 8. So far the point that the authority concerned have not scrutinised and examined the individual claim of the workmen, I find from Annexure-1/A i.e. the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner that he has discussed and considered the claim of each and every workman in detail and then on consideration of materials, has come to the findings on fact that the petitioner did not pay the concerned workmen the minimum wages as fixed by the Government. 9. From the order of the appellate authority contained in Annexure-1, also it appears that he has also considered the claim of each and every workmen and then, on consideration of materials on record, has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner holding that there is no scope for any interference. 10. From the impugned orders, it would appear that the evidence of the workers namely Mahender Mahto, Smt. Sobhan Devi, Salmi Kumari, Smt. Baiso Devi, Jadbe Toppo, Meghnath Mahto, Mohan Lal Mahto and Smt. Madhu Devi were taken and they were also cross examined. Even the Principal of the Central Academy, World Budha Foundation, Bariatu, Ranchi was examined as witness before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Principal, in his evidence, stated that Shri Ravi Kumar Pramanik, Krishna Chandra Poddar, Tulsi Munda, Sukhdeo Munda, Sanicharwa Munda, Kinu Lal Mahto and Bijay Munda worked during the period for which the claim application was filed. Thus it is apparent that the claims of individual workmen were considered and then the impugned orders have been passed. 11.For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. There does not appear to be any reason to differ with the findings of fact arrived at by two authorities i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority. 12.Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed but without any costs. The petitioners are directed to implement the orders passed by the Courts below within a period of four weeks.