JUDGMENT Per S. R. Dongaonkar, J. :- Heard Shri Chhabra, advocate for petitioner and Shri Mehadia, advocate for respondent No. 3. None present for the respondent No. 1 & 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Regional Labour (C) Nagpur dated 15.1.1998 by which the petitioner was ordered to deposit the difference of wages of Rs. 1,27,530/- and compensation equal to fifty percent of the difference of wages amounting to Rs. 63,765/- towards payment due to employees under section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act. Facts leading to this petition are thus - Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) had initiated proceedings against two firms namely : 1. Shri S. K. Arora, Managing Director, M/s. Scantec (I) Pvt. Limited (Behind Sadiq Nagar Market), New Delhi 110049 and 2. Shri D. K. Nandi, Executive Director, M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Sampriti Nagar, Ring Road, P.O. Uppalwadi, Nagpur 440 026 in Application No. N-47(54)/97-CA. The petition was filed under sub-rule (4) of rule 29 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1956. Some delay was there, it was condoned. On merits matter was examined by the authority. The chart of payment of difference of wages was produced by the petitioner before the authority. However, only four employees could be produced before the authorities for verification of payment of difference of wages. The employees who could be contacted are : Allaiya Guvaiya Amulwar, Smt. Kanyabai w/o Allaiya, Smt. Allama and Smt. Davanabai. They stated that they had received difference of wages as shown against their names in the payment sheet produced by the petitioner. Authority came to the conclusion that difference of wages to the remaining employees were not paid, though it was mentioned in the payment sheet for they were not produced before the authorities. Therefore, it passed an impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that claim under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act has to be initiated by the employees who complain that no wages are paid to them or some short wages are paid. Here is the case where concerned employees have not raised any grievance. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to raise such dispute or complaint before the concerned authority. Here is the case where concerned employees have not raised any grievance. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to raise such dispute or complaint before the concerned authority. Further according to him there was no reason for disbelieving the payment sheets submitted by the petitioner before the authority which indicated payments of difference of wages to the remaining employees more so, when four employees who were traceable appeared before the authority and told that they have received the difference of wages. According to him, this fact by itself shows the bona fides of the petitioner as regards payment of difference of wages to remaining employees. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is, improper, incorrect and liable to be quashed and set aside in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 - Shri Mehadia has nothing to say. None appeared for the respondent No. 1 & 2. On perusal of the provisions of section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act it appears that where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-s. (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-s. (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-s. (3). In the case at hand it appears that employees had no grievance, in fact none of them seem to have approached to the petitioner (before authority) at whose instance the lower authority was required to decide the application. There also seems no sufficient ground to invite an inference of the non-payments to the remaining employees when at least four of them had come before the authority who stated that they have received difference of wages and payment sheet submitted by petitioner was indicating the payments of difference of wages to the remaining employees. It cannot be gainsaid that in such circumstances, concerned authority or inspector has to verify as to whether all remaining employees or some of them did not receive the difference of payment. As it is not done, contention of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on suspicion, such order cannot be passed inviting liability of payment of some large amount. It cannot be gainsaid that in such circumstances, concerned authority or inspector has to verify as to whether all remaining employees or some of them did not receive the difference of payment. As it is not done, contention of the petitioner cannot be rejected merely on suspicion, such order cannot be passed inviting liability of payment of some large amount. In this view of the matter the facts and circumstances of the case, invite this court to quash the impugned order. Petition is therefore allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Petition stands disposed of.