ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5, respondent no.6 and the State. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 13.4.2007 given by the Presiding Officer, labour court, Dalimiyanagar, Rohtas in Minimum Wages Act Case No.1/1996. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.6 was not appointed in accordance with law as there has been manipulation in the proceeding dated 18.12.1988 specially in recording the proposal no.8 by which the decision for appointment of respondent no.6 on daily wage basis was taken. It is further submitted in this connection that the Joint Registrar vide his letter dated 24.4.1996 has asked a report from the Auditor also regarding the same. Next submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent no.6 had taken loan from the society and had not liquidated the same. It is also urged that in view of the fact hat the respondent no.6 was a member of the society itself at the relevant period, he could not have been appointed on daily basis. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the stand of the petitioner. 5. From the perusal of the impugned award it appears that the labour court has considered both, the documentary as well as oral evidence, produced on behalf of the parties and, thereafter, has come to the conclusion that Rs.13,500/- is still required to be paid to the respondent no.6 by way of his emoluments and after adding six times compensation in terms of the provision contained in the Minimum Wages Act, the total amount payable to the respondent no.6 was found to be Rs.94,500/- which was required to be paid within a month failing which an interest of 10% per annum was also allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 has tried to impress upon this Court that the proceeding dated 18.12.1988 suffers from interpolation etc. However, learned counsel for respondent no.5 has not been able to demonstrate that if that was the fact then some action was taken in this regard against the respondent no.6 or the persons who were involved in the aforesaid interpolation. Contrary to the above, the exhibits specially C-1 shows that the respondent no.6 was appointed on daily wage basis on the emoluments of Rs.150/- per month. Contrary to the above, the exhibits specially C-1 shows that the respondent no.6 was appointed on daily wage basis on the emoluments of Rs.150/- per month. Another document which has been marked as exhibits C-1 is an order dated 28.10.1992 of the District Co-operative Officer, Aurangabad giving his approval for the appointment to the respondent no.6. Exhibits D-1, F and F 1 etc. are the calculation of work done by the respondent no.6. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has submitted that the some documents were exhibited on their behalf also. However, the same being exhibit G and G/1 do not support their case rather support the case of respondent no.6 as the author of exhibit G appears to be the Managing Director of the Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank and it has been recorded in the aforesaid document that the respondent no.6 should be paid from 01.07.1988 but the payment should not be made to him in cash rather it should be adjusted to liquidate some loan taken by the respondent no.6. Exhibit G-1 is written by the Block Development Officer and addressed to the Joint Secretary Co-operative Society, Magadh Division, Gaya requiring him to pay the amount to the respondent no.6 otherwise he would have to grant permission to him for filing a case before the labour court. It is also stated in the impugned Award that respondent no.6 has already cleared his loan amount. 6. In view of the discussion made above, this Court could not be persuaded to interfere in this matter as no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out. 7. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid in favour of the Respondent No.6. 8. Let the original records be returned immediately to the concerned.