JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P. II and learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the letter No. 99 dated 25.02.2011 by which the respondent No. 2 has passed a direction to the petitioner to continue to engage the workmen concerned as well as to make payment of arrears. 3. It has been stated by Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 under the Minimum Wages Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder did not have the power to issue the impugned letter No. 99 dated 25.02.2011. It has been stated that the direction for payment of arrears could not have been issued without there being any adjudication on the said issue. Learned counsel further submits that the application which was preferred u/s 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act by the Labour Enforcement Officer was on behalf of Dharmendra Kumar and four other persons and since none of them were the workmen of the petitioner and whose names were also not disclosed, the impugned letter No. 99 dated 25.02.2011 has been issued without application of mind and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P. II as well as learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 while relying on the counter affidavit has submitted that in terms of Section 20(4A) of the Bihar Amendment in course of a proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act for payment of difference of wages a safeguard has been given so that an employer may not terminate the services of an employee who had approached the concerned authority for payment of difference of wages and interest and therefore the impugned letter dated 25.02.2011 is in accordance with law. 5. An application was preferred by the Labour Enforcement Officer before the respondent No. 2 in terms of Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act claiming difference of wages on behalf of Dharmendra Kumar and four other persons. The said application which has been brought on record however does not specify the names of the claimants save and except Dharmendra Kumar. An application was preferred by the Labour Enforcement Officer before the respondent No. 2 in terms of Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act claiming difference of wages on behalf of Dharmendra Kumar and four other persons. The said application which has been brought on record however does not specify the names of the claimants save and except Dharmendra Kumar. The respondent No. 2 on receipt of an application had issued notice and had directed the parties to be present on 11.03.2011 while passing an interim order that all the claimants should be paid arrears of wages and their services should continue to be taken by the petitioner. So far as the direction in the impugned letter dated 25.02.2011 with respect to the payment of arrears of wages is concerned, the same could not have been passed by way of an interim measure since it was for the respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the dispute which has been raised by the Labour Enforcement Office under the Minimum Wages Act and its rules. However with respect to a direction regarding taking work from the applicants are concerned, the respondent No. 2 had acted in terms of Section 20(4A) of the Bihar Amendment. However it must be clarified herein that the same was till the adjudication on the application preferred by the Labour Enforcement Officer. It is not known as to the fate of the application preferred u/s 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act as learned counsel for either of the parties are not in a position to disclose the actual and present status. Be that as it may, in view of what has been stated above, this writ application stands disposed of with a clarification of the letter dated 25.02.2011 that the direction with respect to taking of work from the concerned employee shall be restricted only during pendency of the proceeding initiated u/s 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act and so far as the payment of arrears of wages is concerned the same shall be subject to adjudication by the competent authority. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.