ORDER 1. Order dated 9.12.2009 passed by Labour Court in case under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is being questioned vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, by the petitioner who is held to be a principal employer and is found to have paid wages less than minimum, accordingly subjected to pay the difference. 2. So far as the fact that the respondent being engaged on daily wages and have worked for the period from 1.12.2001 to 10.1.2002 is a finding recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph 16 of the impugned order being based on the material documentary and oral evidence on record are not shown to be perverse. Nor the finding that Rs.5,090/-was paid for 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 days work is shown as perverse. The Labour Court in its finding has analyzed entire evidence on record which when tested on the anvil of record withstand the scrutiny as would workout any indulgence in absence of any cogent material evidence to demolish these findings. 3. Further contention; that the proceedings under section 20 of the Act of 1948 were not tenable as the claim was for grant of wages and not the difference of wages are taken note of and negatived at the outset. Evident it is from the claim application that, the respondents were engaged for digging pools at the rate of Rs.50/- per pool; however, after completion of 1/3rd work the Secretary of Petitioner's Society stopped the digging work paid only Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.1,09,075/-. 4. Sub-section (e) of section 2 of 1948 Act defines employer to mean any person who employes, whether directly or indirectly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any Scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed. 5. As per sub-section (g) of Section 2 of 1948 Act, Schedule employment means an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. 6. Sub-section (ee) of section 2 of 1948 Act expression 'employee' is defined to mean any person who is employed for hire or record to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed. 6. Sub-section (ee) of section 2 of 1948 Act expression 'employee' is defined to mean any person who is employed for hire or record to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed. The expression 'wages' means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes house rent allowance. 7. Section 3 of 1948 empowers the appropriate Government to fix and also to review the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I as Part II of the Scheduled and in an employment added to either part by notification under section 27. Furthermore section 18 of 1948 Act envisages that, every employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of employees employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages paid by them, the receipts given by them and such other particulars and in such form as may be specified. 8. There is no material on record to dispute the fact as to petitioner being an employer, respondents being employees engaged in scheduled employment. The question is whether the claim for the difference was tenable. 9. Section 20 of 1948 Act empowers the appropriate government to appoint by notification in official gazette any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising function as a Labour Commissioner for any region or other officer with experience as a Judge of a civil Court or as a Stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area: “Any claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14, to employees employed or paid without area.” 10. Though reliance is placed on the decision by Division Bench of our High Court in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd.), Nagpur v. Bisen Rajaram and others [ 1978 JLJ 411 = 1978 MPLJ 595 ] to bring home the submission that it was beyond the jurisdiction of Labour Court to have entertained the application under section 20 of Act, 1948 to entertain an application for difference of wages. It is held in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd.), Nagpur v. Bisen Rajaram and others (supra): “6. It is also argued by the learned counsel that in view of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, which confers jurisdiction on the authority appointed under that section, jurisdiction could not be exercised under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This argument is also devoid of any merit. Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act was construed by the Supreme Court in Athani Municipality v. Labour Court, Hubli ( AIR 1969 SC 1335 .). It was pointed out in that case that the language used in section 20 showed that the authority appointed under that provision of law exercises jurisdiction for deciding claims which relate to rates of wages, rates for payment of work done on days of rest and over-time rates; and that in cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages is due to a workman or not, the authority has no jurisdiction to decide it. In the instant case, the dispute does not relate to the rates of wages. The claim of the workmen is for the balance of the amount payable to them in accordance with the rate applicable which is notice dispute. Such a dispute is not cognizable by the Authority under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. The jurisdiction under section 33C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act for entertaining such a claim is, therefore, not taken away.” 11. Such a dispute is not cognizable by the Authority under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. The jurisdiction under section 33C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act for entertaining such a claim is, therefore, not taken away.” 11. There can be no cavil to the proposition that it is beyond the jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 20 of 1948 Act to grant the difference of wages; however, a close reading of the application preferred by respondent employee and the evidence led therein by respondent employees as well as petitioner employer leaves no iota of doubt that the difference was claimed on the basis of non-grant of minimum wages. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no assistance as would have prevented the Labour Court to entertain the application under section 20 of 1948 Act and passed an order thereon. 12. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and others [( AIR 1969 SC 1335 )]. “6….In section 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act also, provision is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates, of wages or in respect of payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 20 14. This language used in section 20(1) shows that the Authority appointed under that provision of law is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relate to rates of wages, rates for payment of work done on days of rest and overtime rates. If there be no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employees, section 20(1) would not be attracted. The purpose of section 20(1) seems to be to ensure that the 'rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are complied with by the employer in making payments and, if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates, the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under section 20(1). ...” 13. Taking any view of the matter this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by Labour Court as would warrant an indulgence. 14. Petition fails and is dismissed. ...” 13. Taking any view of the matter this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by Labour Court as would warrant an indulgence. 14. Petition fails and is dismissed. Aditya Ahiwasi for petitioner ; None for respondent.