ORDER These petitions though listed for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties are finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The lis brought before court lies in a narrow compass. Petitioners claim to have financed the hostels run by the State, by engaging the services of Cooks for preparing food in the hostels. According to the petitioners a Warden appointed by the State is required to look into the engagement of persons for the aforesaid purpose and report, on a monthly basis, the total amount of wages to be paid to employees so engaged, at the rate of minimum wages fixed by the State Govt. in terms of the Notification dt. 11.12.2001. The lis brought before court is that before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, invoking subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 filed a claim application dt. 23.5.2011 in respect of respondents No.1 to 45 claiming difference of wages for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2011. In that proceeding petitioners opposed the claim by filing 1st statement of objections denying the claim. The respondent filed an affidavit dt. 17.8.2011 and thereafter wards the 46th respondent Labour Officer, by order dt. 10.5.2012, impugned, directed petitioners to pay Rs.28,01,975/- to respondents 1 to 45. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent did not place records relating to the appointment and wages paid every month in respect of 16 respondents for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2011. Learned counsel hastens to add that except for the 1st respondent’s statement on oath, there was nothing worth the while to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the parties or the fact of short payment of minimum wages during the period of alleged employment. Learned counsel submits that it is the Warden who was required to place relevant material such as the acquittance register or other such documents to establish the jural relationship between the parties. 4. Learned Govt. Advocate representing the 46th respondent Labour Officer submits that material necessary for decision making was required to be placed by the employees or the Wardens appointed by the State to every Hostel, who had special knowledge of engaging the services of Cooks, Asst.Cooks and House keepers in the Hostel which evidence is not forthcoming from the records. 5. Learned Govt. Advocate representing the 46th respondent Labour Officer submits that material necessary for decision making was required to be placed by the employees or the Wardens appointed by the State to every Hostel, who had special knowledge of engaging the services of Cooks, Asst.Cooks and House keepers in the Hostel which evidence is not forthcoming from the records. 5. Sri.Vigneshwar Shastri, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 45 submits that the 3rd petitioner Taluk Social Welfare Officer filed an affidavit stating that respondents have been paid minimum wages and that minimum wage would be paid from September 2011 onwards provided the respondents are eligible. Learned counsel further submits that 45 respondents working against sanctioned posts in the Hostel against a wage scale which when not made available, were entitled to the minimum wage as fixed by the State Govt. in the Notification of the year 2001. Learned counsel hastens to add that a pernicious practice is followed by Hostel Wardens by which monthly wage are drawn against persons holding substantive posts but payment is made to the respondents who discharge duties attached to the said posts. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned, undoubtedly the order suffers from perversity of approach and findings. In the first place, respondents did not place relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that each of them were engaged by the Wardens of Hostels muchless petitioners 1 to 3. In the absence of appointment orders, there was no proof of the dates from which they were allegedly appointed against substantive posts and whether such appointments were in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Rules after a Notification inviting applications for the said posts. The submission of Sri.Vigneshwara Shastri, learned counsel that merely because a Taluk Social Welfare Officer3rd petitioner filed an affidavit stating that respondents 1 to 45 were appointed against the sanction posts, perse, it cannot be held that they were so appointed. Hostels are said to be established by the State, hence the Rules and Regulations regarding appointments were very essential. 7. Hostels are said to be established by the State, hence the Rules and Regulations regarding appointments were very essential. 7. It has become the order of the day in cases where persons engaged in Hostels come before the Labour Authority seeking payment of minimum wage or difference in wages, whence, for various considerations, the Taluk Social Welfare Officers are habituated to filing affidavits without even verifying records relating to alleged appointments. Hence, exfacie it is impermissible to accept the affidavit filed by the 3rd petitioner. It is for the state Government and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to take action against such erring officials, who file affidavits without verifying relevant material over existence of jural relationship of employer and employee. 8. The next aspect of the matter is that the Hostel Wardens said to be appointed by the State Government and custodian of the records relating to employment in the Hostels, are not examined. It is the experience of this court that invariably Wardens are not examined though are custodian of records. The Labour Officers, are required to inspect, affix their signature, verify the acquittance register in a manner known to law under several Labour Statutes. Had the Labour Inspectors having territorial jurisdiction over the hostels discharged their duties, by examining and inspecting the acquittance registers, respondents 1 to 45 would not have had to file the applications. There is a failure on the part of the Labour Inspector in the discharge of his duties. In that view of the matter, State Government and the Labour Department to take action against such erring officials. 9. If regard is had to the aforesaid perversity, the irresistible conclusion is that the 46th respondent had no material whatsoever before him to conclusively establish the jural relationship between the parties or the factum of alleged short payment of the minimum wages to respondents. 10. In the circumstances, the order impugned calls for interference. 11. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The order of the 46th respondent Labour Officer is quashed. The proceeding is remitted for consideration afresh with a direction to the parties to lay before the Officer every and all relevant material relating to (a) jural relationship; and (b) the alleged failure to make payment of the minimum wages. 11. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The order of the 46th respondent Labour Officer is quashed. The proceeding is remitted for consideration afresh with a direction to the parties to lay before the Officer every and all relevant material relating to (a) jural relationship; and (b) the alleged failure to make payment of the minimum wages. If respondents 1 to 45 were to make an application before the Authority concerned to direct the petitioners and the Warden of the Hostel to produce and speak to relevant records, there is no reason to believe that the Labour Authority would not pass orders in accordance with law. Regard being had to Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the burden of proof, at the first instance, lies on respondents 1 to 45 to establish their claim and thereafter wards proof of that fact shall shift on petitioners 1 to 3 if they choose to do so by placing relevant material. Parties since represented by the learned counsel are directed to be present before the 46th respondent on 24.4.2014 without further notice. The Authority to dispose of the petitions by 31.5.2014. All contentions of both parties are kept open.