JUDGMENT : MR. ROHIT ARYA, J. 1. Petitioner-Anil Kumar Panjawani; a Proprietor Firm M/s Pawan Traders, has approached this Court taking exception to the order dated 31/3/2016 passed by the prescribed authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity "the Act of 1948"). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that the Labour Inspector had inspected the petitioner's establishment on 2/11/2011 and upon inspection, it was found that the employees working therein were not being paid regular wages nor their service records were duly maintained. It was found that in the registration certificate, number of employees were shown to be blank, whereas ten employees were working in the establishment. Nine employees had recorded the statement during inspection and confirmed payment of less than minimum wages in violation of Section 12 of the Act of 1948. Petitioner neither signed nor received the inspection report. Consequent thereupon, show-cause notice dated 11/11/2011 along with inspection report was sought to be served on the petitioner. Notice was received by the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner did not appear before the Labour Inspector. On the following day, all the employees were removed from employment. As such, petitioner did not cooperate in the matter of supply of information as regards working of employees and details of payment made. Under the circumstances, the Labour Inspector based upon the statement of employees, recorded due inspection and due verification of facts and as such, prepared the details of wages payable to the workers for preceding one year and worked out an amount of Rs.2,18,200/- as difference of wages payable to be employees and imposed ten times penalty on the said amount. Thereafter, on refusal to deposit the difference of wages and penalty so imposed, the Labour Inspector filed the claim before the Labour Court under Section 20 (2) of the Act of 1948 seeking realization thereof. Notices were issued by the Labour Court. Evidence was led by the Labour Inspector as well as all the employees, as detailed in para 8 of the order. They were cross-examined. Their testimony that they have worked but are being paid less than minimum wages remained intact. Labour Inspector proved the schedule, Ex.P/1, its report Ex.P/2 and show cause notice Ex.P/3. Evidence was led by the Labour Inspector as well as all the employees, as detailed in para 8 of the order. They were cross-examined. Their testimony that they have worked but are being paid less than minimum wages remained intact. Labour Inspector proved the schedule, Ex.P/1, its report Ex.P/2 and show cause notice Ex.P/3. Petitioner also recorded his statement, but made a bald statement of denial of inspection, preparation of report, denial of employment of employees much less payment of less than minimum wages etc. No record was produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court confirmed the arrears of wages payable to the workers, however, reduced the penalty to 5% and granted two months' time to the petitioner to pay the amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking exception to the order passed by the prescribed authority/Labour Court raised solitary question that the Labour Inspector has no locus standi to file the case under Section 20 (2) of the Act of 1948 before the Labour Court, as according to learned counsel, the form prescribed for submission of the application under Section 20 (2) of the Act of 1948 by employees is prescribed under form VI, wherein signatures of the employees are mandatory. There was no authorization or consent given by the employees empowering the Labour Inspector to file the application, therefore, the entire proceedings before the Labour Court were vitiated for the reason of jurisdictional error. 4. This Court finds the aforesaid argument to be more of desperation than of substance. As a matter of fact, Section 20 (2) of the Act of 1948 itself provides that an application can be filed by the Inspector in addition to other persons prescribed and such an application is to be filed in form VII appended to the Act of 1948. The argument of learned counsel is in ignorance of prescription of form VII. That apart, even otherwise on merits this Court finds no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Labour Court. As a matter of fact, petitioner had adopted hostile attitude all throughout. The premises was inspected on 2/11/2011. Nine employees working therein had deposed before the Labour Inspector during inspection that they were being paid less than minimum wages. Thereafter, the petitioner did not sign the report and take the copy thereof. As a matter of fact, petitioner had adopted hostile attitude all throughout. The premises was inspected on 2/11/2011. Nine employees working therein had deposed before the Labour Inspector during inspection that they were being paid less than minimum wages. Thereafter, the petitioner did not sign the report and take the copy thereof. Petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice dated 11/11/2011 though served upon him through his brother. Petitioner did not file any document related to details of the employees before the Labour Court. On the other hand, all such employees had again deposed before the Labour Court and maintained the stand of having not been paid the minimum wages. The Labour Inspector has proved the schedule Ex.P/1, inspection report Ex.P/2 and notice Ex.P/3. Therefore, the conclusions/findings drawn by the Labour Court as regards arrears of minimum wages to the tune of Rs.2,18,200/- are impregnable in nature. Penalty has been reduced to 5% in its discretionary jurisdiction by the Labour Court. Under these circumstances, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.