ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioner, Assistant Executive Engineer, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ('BWSSB' for short) is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, ('Act' for short), insofar as it is applicable to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner/Board invited tenders for deployment of man power at the units of its offices located under the jurisdiction of West Division. The 2nd respondent offered to deploy trained watch and ward personnel at the rate specified in the tender conditions. Accordingly the terms were negotiated and the offer was accepted by the 2nd respondent. Further, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 3. When things stood thus, the 1st respondent/Senior Labour Inspector conducted an inspection on 09.08.2011 and made a report alleging that the workers who were deployed as security personnel were not paid the minimum wages, in terms of the Act and directed the petitioner and 2nd respondent to pay the difference of minimum wages payable to seven workers totalling to Rs. 52,016/- The 1st respondent registered a claim petition before the 3rd respondent No. LOB-1/MWA/CR- 24/2011-12. The 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to submit their defence and accordingly objections were filed before the 3rd respondent, wherein petitioner categorically contended that the Board is not the employer of the personnel deployed as security guards by the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent is their employer. The petitioner further contended that the 2nd respondent is the contractor under the petitioner Board and as such there is no relationship between the petitioner and the said employees deployed by the 2nd respondent. 4. In the proceedings before the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and produced documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5. An Assistant Executive Engineer of the petitioner Board was examined as R.W.1 and documents Exs.R.1 to R.5 were produced. The 2nd respondent neither led any evidence nor produced documents. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order, Annexure-B, without considering the entire material on record. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 5. An Assistant Executive Engineer of the petitioner Board was examined as R.W.1 and documents Exs.R.1 to R.5 were produced. The 2nd respondent neither led any evidence nor produced documents. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order, Annexure-B, without considering the entire material on record. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 5. The respondent No.2 filed objections to the writ petition contending that BWSSB is the principal employer and is liable to pay the difference of minimum wages and he was only a contractor to supply man power. Therefore, in view of the definition of Section 2(e) of the 'Act', it is the petitioner who employed the workers through 2nd respondent and therefore, petitioner is the employer for the workers for whom Annexure-B was passed. If at all any liability to pay the wages as fixed in Annexure-B is to be satisfied, without admitting the same, it was contended that the petitioner has to bear the entire burden and not the 2nd respondent and accordingly, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the authority and contended that the impugned order passed by the authority after considering the objections and evidence on record is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner invited tenders for deployment of trained watch and ward personal and supervision over them at the units of its offices located at North Division spread over the city of Bengaluru. In terms of the tender, the 2nd respondent offered to deploy trained watch and ward personnel at the rates specified in the tender conditions. Accordingly, petitioner and 2nd respondent entered into an agreement on 29.09.2007. It is also not in dispute that there are seven workers working in petitioner through the 2nd respondent. They have not been paid minimum wages of Rs. 52,016/- under the provisions of the 'Act' and the same was determined by the 1st respondent after inspecting the spot. Accordingly, petitioner and 2nd respondent entered into an agreement on 29.09.2007. It is also not in dispute that there are seven workers working in petitioner through the 2nd respondent. They have not been paid minimum wages of Rs. 52,016/- under the provisions of the 'Act' and the same was determined by the 1st respondent after inspecting the spot. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the 3rd respondent and after giving opportunity to both the parties, the 3rd respondent by the impugned order vide Annexure-B dated 20.08.2013 declared that the claim is allowed in part and directed the petitioner and 2nd respondent to pay Rs. 67,248/- The 2nd respondent has not challenged the said order. The petitioner alone who is the employer has filed the present writ petition. 8. It is also not in dispute that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.45255/2013, on 22.01.2014, held that contract labourers are entitled to minimum wages as indicated in the notifications issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act and failure to make payment by the contractor or the principal employer deserves to be dealt with strong arm of law. Therefore, this court directed the petitioner to pay the entire difference of minimum wages as determined by the 3rd respondent with liberty to recover not only the difference amount of wages which was not paid by the contractor, but also the compensation ordered by the authority in the order impugned. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the wages determined by the 3rd respondent in terms of Annexure - B and recover not only the difference of minimum wage which was not paid by contractor, but also the compensation ordered by the authority in the impugned order and in accordance with law.