JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is preferred to question validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 9.3.2009 passed by the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Jalore and the decree dated 18.3.2009 drawn in pursuant to the judgment referred above. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that an application as per provisions of Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948") was filed by the Labour Inspector, Jalore before the prescribed authority under the Act aforesaid with a prayer to prosecute the petitioner for violating the provisions of the Act of 1948. As per the application the Inspector made an inspection of M/s Shivshanker Bhojnalay and found that the employees working with the establishment were not paid wages as prescribed by the Government of Rajasthan in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1948. The inspection report and certain other documents were annexed with the complaint. 3. A reply to the application was submitted with assertion that the complaint was filed only with a view to harass and victimise the petitioner due to vengeance, however, no reason was given for making such an allegation. 4. While adjudicating the complaint the prescribed authority recorded statements of the Labour Inspector and the counsel for the petitioner was permitted to cross examine him. The Labour Inspector stated on oath that on 22.11.2002 at about 02:30 PM he inspected M/s Shivshanker Bhojnalay, opposite Kacheri, Jalore and made a complete report after recording statements of certain employees. The statements of such employees were placed on record as Ex.1. In defence, statements of Shri Mangilal, Proprietor of the petitioner establishment were recorded who stated that the inspection was made by the Inspector in his absence. He also stated that he was making payment of wages to the workmen Rs. 100/- per day. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the payment to the employees was not made by the petitioner establishment in accordance with the rates prescribed by the appropriate Government as per the provisions of the Act of 1948. 5. 100/- per day. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the payment to the employees was not made by the petitioner establishment in accordance with the rates prescribed by the appropriate Government as per the provisions of the Act of 1948. 5. While challenging the same, the only argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the controlling authority relied upon the statements given by the Labour Inspector and held the petitioner guilty for not making payment in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1948 without getting the fact verified by the workmen concerned. 6. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The prescribed authority examined the statements given by the Labour Inspector who also verified the inspection report and the statements of the employees recorded by him while inspecting the establishment. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the Labour Inspector. In such circumstances, there was no need for examining the employees concerned by the prescribed authority. The order impugned as such does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******