1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has been filed by M/s. Bharat Small Arms Private Limited seeking quashment of order no. ALC/K/812 dated 31.3.2010 of respondent no. 1 (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua), whereby an amount of Rs. 49518/- along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to respondent nos. 2 & 3. 2. Brief facts are as under: 3. Petitioner is running a Gun factory. Respondents-Rachh Paul Singh and Madan Lal were working with the petitioner as Fitters in the said factory. They applied to the authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua) alleging therein that they were being paid less wages than the rates fixed by the Government, as they were working as skilled workers within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act. Their application was considered by the authority and vide order dated 31.3.2010, which is impugned in the present writ petition, the same was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 49,518/- to each of the respondents along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The authority further directed that the amount be deposited in the Court within 30 days, failing which interest at the rate of 12% shall be levied and appropriate legal action will follow. 4. Feeling aggrieved. M/s. Bharat Small Arms Private Limited has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said award on various grounds, inter alia, that the order impugned has been passed by the authority on conjectures and surmises, there is no evidence/proof to show that the private respondents are skilled labourers and that the authority has allowed the petition of the private respondents contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 5. The petitioner's case, as is projected by them in the petition and as was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments, is that the respondents have been engaged as semi-skilled Labourers, which fact is established from the record also, the authority on presumptions found that the respondents were skilled labourers and applied the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, which are not applicable to the present case under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority has returned a perverse finding which is not based on any evidence on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in this behalf, referred to Section 21 of the Minimum Wages Act. He has also referred to SRO 20 of 2002 dated 15.01.2002, issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Government to show that even under said SRO, which is relied upon by the authority, the respondents cannot be treated as skilled labourers. 8. Learned counsel for the private respondents has, on the other hand, defended the order impugned. He has referred to the definition of "semi-skilled" and "Skilled" workers, as provided in SRO 18 of 1985 dated 1.1.1985. He submits that under SRO 20 of 2002 dated 15.1.2002, all workers employed in manufacturing of Arms and Ammunition have been placed under skilled category and since the respondents were working as Fitter of Guns, this category falls under the skilled category within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act. 9. Heard. 10. I have considered the matter. I have gone through the record which is placed on file in the shape of various annexures and have also perused the impugned order. 11. On consideration of the matter, I find the authority has not properly considered the matter but has drawn its own conclusion which is not supported by the evidence produced in the case. 12. In the statements of the witnesses, extracts of which have been reproduced by the authority in the order impugned, it is admitted by the respondents and it thus stands established that the respondents were appointed and were working in the Factory as semi-skilled workers. It is also established that the respondents have received full and final payment after retrenchment from the Management. The authority has not properly considered this aspect but has concluded that the respondents should have got themselves promoted to skilled category by all standards. Application of SRO 20 dated 15.1.2002 to the facts of the case also appears to be misconceived as the authority has not stated how under the said SRO the respondents can be treated as skilled workers. 13. Thus, I find that a perverse finding has been returned based on the evidence which has not been properly appreciated by the authority at all. Reliance on SRO 20 of 2002 also is not correct. 14. 13. Thus, I find that a perverse finding has been returned based on the evidence which has not been properly appreciated by the authority at all. Reliance on SRO 20 of 2002 also is not correct. 14. In the circumstances, I find that the order impugned cannot stand. This petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order impugned is set aside.