JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. The captive application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the entire proceeding in a Claim Misc. Case No.6 of 1991 including the order dated 25.3.1991 of taking cognizance of offence under Section 21(4), 25(2), 26(2) and (6) of the Minimum Wages Act and order dated 23.4.2005 denying exercise of jurisdiction under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with attendance of the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.K. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party No.2, who is the Assistant Labour Officer, Bargarh filed Claim Case under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called “the Act”) on 19.3.1991 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur and Authority appointed under the Act. Learned Magistrate without following the provisions of law took it as a complaint filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence under Sections 21(4), 25(2), 26(2) and (6) of the Act and then issued summon to present petitioner to appear. According to him, the entire order of taking cognizance is wrong and illegal because the prosecution report filed is not to be treated as a complaint as per Section 190 Cr.P.C. but it is simply a claim case to be followed with orders to be passed under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. So, the learned Magistrate committed error in assuming the jurisdiction of not being authorized under the Act. 3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the summon could not be served in correct address, learned Court below committed error by issuing D.W. on 3.4.2000 and N.B.W. of arrest on 3.7.2001. However, the petitioner learnt that there is a case pending long since in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur. He made petition on 1.2.2005 under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with personal attendance of the petitioner but that was also rejected on the ground that D.W. and N.B.W. have already been issued. 4. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that according to the decision reported in 2003 (II) OLR 219 ; Debasis Samantaray v. State of Orissa and another and (2004) 29 OCR 354; Sumanta alias Sumanta Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, there is no bar to consider the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. even if D.W. and N.B.W. of arrest have been issued against the accused. So, the learned Magistrate erred in law by passing the illegal order on 23.4.2005 in rejecting the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner. Thus, he challenged the entire proceeding with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including all those impugned orders passed against the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel without disputing the fact submitted that Section 20 of the Act empowers the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur-cum-Authority under the Act to pass order as deemed fit and proper. She also fairly submitted that it is a Claim Case warranting the procedure to be adopted as if it is a civil case. But there is also provision in the Act to proceed against the violator on the criminal side to punish the offender. DISCUSSION 6. Section 20 of the Act is placed below for reference : “20. Claims.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint [any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labor Commissioner for any region or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labor Commissioner or any] 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 all 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 in that area. (2) [Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1)], the employee himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3) : Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages [or other amount] became payable : Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. [(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct – (i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess; (ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees, and the authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application.] (4) If the authority hearing any application under this section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious, it may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be paid to the employer by the person presenting the application. (5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered – (a) if the authority is a Magistrate, by the authority as if it were a fine imposed by the authority as a Magistrate, or (b) if the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate to whom the authority makes application in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate. (6) Every direction of the authority under this section shall be final. (7) Every authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of taking evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and every such authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.” 7. The aforesaid provisions made it clear that under sub-section (1) the authority appointed by the appropriate Government is conferred with the power to decide the claims against payment of wages less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the non-payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days or overtime to the employees. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 allows the employee himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the authority would apply to such Authority for the relief to be granted under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, the Authority would hear the applicant and the employer after giving them an opportunity of being heard and pass necessary order where the employer would be directed to pay the minimum wages along with the compensation as the Authority may think fit and proper. Similarly under sub-section (3) of Section 20, the Authority is also empowered to pass order directing the employer to pay the amount due to the employee of the amount not less than the minimum rates of wages and in other cases the payment of the amount due to the employee together with the payment of compensation as the Authority thinks fit. Again under sub-section (4) the Authority has been empowered to direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees to be paid to the employer by the person presenting the application if it is found that malicious and vexatious allegations have been made by the person concerned. Here sub-section (5) of Section 20 is crucial to be noted because it provides for a mechanism for implementation of the orders passed by the Authority under the Act for all practical purposes which is to be treated as execution petition presented before a criminal court. On the other hand only after determination of the amount which was directed to be recovered may be recovered as if it is a fact finding authority or the Magistrate. On the other hand, if the amount of compensation or the back wages or minimum wages not paid then only sub-section (5) of Section 20 would be pressed into service. Sub-section (7) of Section 20 is also important one to find out the character of the concerned authority because every Authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall have all the powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of taking evidence, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the production of documents and every such Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Thus, the aforesaid provisions are clear enough to show that after receipt of the claim petition the Authority under sub-section (1) would consider the claim after affording opportunity of being heard to both parties and for all purposes it would be a Civil Court. Only under sub-section (5) it can enforce the order as if it is a fine in the event the order is not complied by the employee or employer to whom it is directed. 8. Now adverting to the present case, it appears that at the first instance following order dated 25.3.1991 was passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur : “25.3.91 P.R. received against Pramod Kumar Agrawal. Cog. U/s.21(4), 25(2), 26(2) and (6) M & W Act is taken. Issue summon to the accused to appear on 22.6.91.” After that the case was dragged on by arraying the present petitioner as an accused. Then it went on for service of summon till the Distress Warrant of arrest is issued on 3.4.2000. Cog. U/s.21(4), 25(2), 26(2) and (6) M & W Act is taken. Issue summon to the accused to appear on 22.6.91.” After that the case was dragged on by arraying the present petitioner as an accused. Then it went on for service of summon till the Distress Warrant of arrest is issued on 3.4.2000. On that day also the S.R. has not returned but D.W. was issued as it is an year old matter. The D.W. remained pending till 21.12.2004. That order is very crucial to note here : “21.12.04 Advocate for Sri B.K. Joshi files a Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. Pramod Kumar Agrawal. V. nama is accepted. He is directed to pay the claim amount of this case immediately. D.W. not yet executed. O.P. Pramod Kumar Agrawal is absent on repeated calls. Put up on 1.2.05 for execution.” The aforesaid order shows that the Advocate appeared for the petitioner and without any enquiry as required under section 20(3), the Court passed order directing to pay the claim amount immediately. It is not understood as to how the D.W. again remained to be executed when the Advocate for the petitioner appeared through Vakalatnama which was accepted. However, on 1.2.2005 a petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was filed. Same was disposed of on 14.2.2005 in the following manner : “14.2.2005 This record is put up to-day for necessary order on the petition filed by the learned advocate for the accused on 1.2.2005 U/s. 205 Cr.P.C. Perused the petition, judgment passed in the cases relied on and reported namely Smt. Saraswati Sahuani and another versus Maguni Sahu, Sushanta Kumar Das versus State of Orissa. I have also perused the order sheets and the prosecution report submitted by the complainant. This is a case U/s.20(2) of Minimum Wages Act in which the complainant has claimed arrear differential wages in respect of 30 Nos. of poor labourers. Prosecution report was received on 25.03.1991. Summons were sent to the accused again and again within a period of six years i.e. from 1991 to 1997 but it was in vain. The accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Only on 30.7.1997 service return of the accused was back with an endorsement that the addressee was absent. This Court after perusing the materials on record thought it proper to issue coercive process against the accused as the accused avoided the summons. The accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Only on 30.7.1997 service return of the accused was back with an endorsement that the addressee was absent. This Court after perusing the materials on record thought it proper to issue coercive process against the accused as the accused avoided the summons. That order was passed on 03.04.2004 i.e. after 9 years of receipt of the Procession Report. Only on 01.02.2005, the learned advocate for the accused appeared in Court and filed a petition to recall the order passed by this Court earlier and to allow the accused to be represented u/s.205 Cr.P.C. The learned advocate for the accused has not filed any document to show that in fact the accused is ill and unable to come to the Court. However, this Case is of the year, 1991 and the accused managed to avoid the summons and process till 2005. Due to such activities of the accused, the poor labourers are suffering since about last 15 years. So, I am not inclined to recall the order passed by this Court earlier and allow the petition U/s.205 Cr.P.C. I find no merit in the petition filed by the learned advocate for the accused. Hence, the petition is rejected. Put up on 30.5.2005 for execution.” 9. The aforesaid order clearly shows non-application of the judicial mind by the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur while rejecting the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the impugned order has found fault with the petitioner for long pendency of the case when the order sheet shows that summon could not be served and there is no order to file correct address of the petitioner and without following the proper procedure enshrined under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, such order is nothing but coercive one to reject the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. Had there been service of summon and the petitioner is well aware of the service of summon, the matter would have been otherwise. Even if opportunity was there with the learned Court below to deal with the matter with proper perspective but the order was passed directing to pay the amount on 21.12.2004 without affording opportunity to the petitioner of being heard as required under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. The impugned order also passed on 14.2.2005 being not in accordance with law cannot stand to the scrutiny. 10. The impugned order also passed on 14.2.2005 being not in accordance with law cannot stand to the scrutiny. 10. When the order of taking cognizance is illegal, subsequent proceedings including order passed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. are also illegal. It is reported in AIR 1975 (SC) 915 ; Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. V. Govind Joti Chavare and others, where Their Lordships observed that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. So, in the instant case, when Section 20 (3) of the Act directs to adopt the procedure as enshrined therein and it is a purely civil nature proceeding, the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. is wholly illegal and improper because the thing to be done in the manner as prescribed under Section 20 must be done in that process and it cannot be followed by any other method to which the learned S.D.J.M., Padampur-cum-Authority finds suitable. 11. In terms of the above discussion, the impugned order of taking cognizance and the entire proceeding being abuse of process of Court are hereby quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.