JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Official Liquidator. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Company Judge dated 24.12.2009 passed in Company Petition No.3 of 1984 (in the matter of Rohtas Industries) whereby an application filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the Official Liquidator to calculate and pay the arrears of minimum wages and statutory bonus on the basis of rates as notified and published under the Minimum Wages Act for the period 1.1.1996 till he served as a daily wage workman, has been rejected. 3. The claim of the. appellant has arisen on account of orders passed by the learned Company Judge in this case on 8.4.2005/21.4.2005 directing the Official Liquidator to pay wages for each days work as per notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act to the employees including the manual workers engaged on daily wages. The claim is also based upon a subsequent order of the learned Company Judge dated 12.12.2008 passed in I.A. No. 4987 of 2008 whereby claim of employees working on daily wages under the company in liquidation totaling 40 in all, for payment of arrears of minimum wages and statutory bonus in accordance with law for the period from 1.1.1996 was allowed. The Official Liquidator as per direction of the learned Company Judge calculated their dues since 1.1.1996 and has accepted their claim for arrears under the Minimum Wages Act as well as for payment of statutory bonus as per provisions of Payment of Bonus Act. 4. Learned Company Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant mainly on the basis of reasons given in the order dated 12.12.2008 whereby claim of 40 workmen for arrears of minimum wages and statutory bonus was allowed, mainly on the ground that the fund position of the company under liquidation had registered some improvement and because of number of employees being reduced, the present employees were performing more strenuous work. 5. 5. The issue raised before us is whether the daily wage employees, who have been allowed to continue to work under the orders of this Court dated 5.4.1996 whereby sanction was accorded for allowing 10 officers, 40 staffs and 75 labourers to be retained till 30.6.1996 which period was later extended by different orders and who have continued for different periods, should be deprived of payment as per Minimum Wages Act or not. The other issue is that once 40 employees, who are still working on daily wage basis, have been paid arrears of minimum wages since 1.1.1996, will it be discriminatory to deny minimum wages to those who got into daily wage employment like those 40 employees since 1.1.1996 and had continued as such for different periods? 6. On a consideration of relevant materials, we are of the considered opinion that this Court or the Company Judge cannot be expected to pass any orders so as to flout the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Further, the argument that Pandoras box would be opened on account of allowing minimum wages and payment of dues from 1.1.1996 does not appear to be correct because daily wage employees in very limited numbers continued under the orders and directions of this Court after the liquidation proceeding had commenced. Terms of their engagement and their claims cannot be equated with the claims of regular employees of the company prior to 1.1.1996 when the companys employees were in proper service. Hence, there is no chance of opening of Pandoras box. This order will cover only the 40 staffs and 75 labourers out of whom 40 appear to have been already paid under the orders of learned Company Judge. The order under appeal is set aside and the Official Liquidator is directed to pay the arrears of minimum wages and statutory bonus to the appellant only for the period commencing from 1.1.1996 till the appellant was engaged in service. The actual service period of the appellant shall be subject to verification on the basis of records. 7. We have not allowed the prayer on behalf of the appellant that he should be allowed to maintain the appeal in representative capacity because paragraph 2 of the order under appeal shows that the appellant could not satisfy that he was competent to represent other workmen and hence, he had confined submissions to his own case only. 7. We have not allowed the prayer on behalf of the appellant that he should be allowed to maintain the appeal in representative capacity because paragraph 2 of the order under appeal shows that the appellant could not satisfy that he was competent to represent other workmen and hence, he had confined submissions to his own case only. But in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, it is clarified that if claims are filed by other similarly situated workmen belonging to the category of 40 staffs and 75 labourers, who were engaged on daily wages basis from or after 1.1.1996 then their claims will also be considered in the light of this order. It is expected that appellants claim shall be settled expeditiously, preferably within three months. 8. The appeal stands allowed to that extent only. There shall be no order as to costs.