JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Ranajay De, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate, submits that he has no instruction in the matter and accordingly he has not advanced any argument in the instant case. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of other respondents. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "An appropriate writ, order or direction from this Hon''ble Court for quashing of order dated 07.04.2012 passed by learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal No. 2 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed in MW Case No. 24 of 2008 has been dismissed; (II) A further writ, order or direction for quashing of order dated 18.08.2009 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 29,40,645/- to 69 labourers on account of difference of payment under the Minimum Wages Act and also to pay compensation; AND/OR (III) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows:- a. On 15.07.1992, the petitioner-company had entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 4 in connection with engagement of C & F agent as contained Annexure-1 to this writ petition According to the counsel it has been clearly indicated in the agreement itself that the agreement is on principal to principal basis. b. A proceeding under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was initiated and was numbered as M. W. Case No. 24 of 2008 wherein the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 were parties and vide order dated 18.08.2009, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi directed both the parties to make payment of an amount of Rs. 29,40,645/- to 69 workmen within a period of 30 days. 4 were parties and vide order dated 18.08.2009, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi directed both the parties to make payment of an amount of Rs. 29,40,645/- to 69 workmen within a period of 30 days. c. The said order dated 18.08.2009, which was an exparte order , was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 5495 of 2011which was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2011 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum within the stipulated timeframe. In the meantime, a certificate proceeding was also initiated for the recovery of the amount arising out of aforesaid order passed in M. W. 24 of 2008. d. Pursuant to order passed in W.P. (L) No. 5495 of 2011, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and specifically raised an issue that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and said 69 workmen and accordingly, the petitioner is not liable to pay minimum wages to such persons. e. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 who had filed an independent appeal against order dated 18.08.2009 , the said appeal was dismissed, and against the appellate order another writ petition was filed before this Court, which was numbered as W.P. (L) No. 3973 of 2011. f. However, in the appeal filed by the petitioner ,the Appellate Authority vide impugned order rejected the contention of the petitioner on the point of employer and employee relationship and the matter was adjourned to 16.04.2012 in connection with distribution of the amount to the concerned workmen. g. During the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, and has submitted that in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi vide judgment dated 28.04.2018 has held that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the persons employed by respondent no. 4 and has refused the claim of the workmen for regularization of their services with the petitioner. h. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the specific case of the petitioner is that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the 69 workmen involved in this case. 4 and has refused the claim of the workmen for regularization of their services with the petitioner. h. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the specific case of the petitioner is that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the 69 workmen involved in this case. This issue has already been adjudicated in the aforesaid Reference Case No. 1 of 2011 in which the workmen involved in the instant case were also parties. He submits that the aforesaid judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal which is dated 28.04.2018 has not been challenged by any of the workmen before any authority. He also submits that even the witnesses who have deposed in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011 are almost same as that of the witnesses who had deposed in the Minimum Wages Case involved in the instant writ petition. i. Accordingly, he submits that the issue as to whether there is any employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the workmen involved in this case has been settled and this subsequent development being a pronouncement by quasi- judicial authority which may be taken into consideration for the purposes of the instant case also. j. He also submits that no counter affidavit has been filed to the said supplementary affidavit by which the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011 has been filed. The counsel, while assailing the impugned order dated 18.08.2009 submits, that the impugned order is perverse to the extent of absurdity in view of the fact that the petitioner as well as the private respondent no. 4 herein, both have been directed to pay the minimum wages to the concerned workmen. k. The counsel during the course of argument has also submitted that there is no concept of principal employer and a contractor in the context of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and such concept is only in the matter of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) 1970. He submits that in absence of such concept of principal employer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the petitioner could not have been made liable for payment of minimum wages which were employed by respondent no. 4 with whom the petitioner has relationship on principal to principal basis. He submits that in absence of such concept of principal employer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the petitioner could not have been made liable for payment of minimum wages which were employed by respondent no. 4 with whom the petitioner has relationship on principal to principal basis. l. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Judgment passed by The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, ( Narayan Hari Kumdhare vs. Porwal, (1969) 1 LLJ 21 ) and has referred to page 26 of the said judgment to submit that it has been held that one of the crucial questions that must arise for decision, if a claim is made under Minimum Wages Act, is to determine the nature of relationship between the claimant and the person from whom the payment is claimed. He submits that in absence of this exercise, the liability could not have been fastened upon the petitioner. (b) In ( BALWANT RAI SALUJA & ANR. VS. AIR INDIA LTD. & ORS., (2014) 9 SCALE 567 ) a judgment decided by Hon''ble Supreme Court, he refers to Para 61 of this judgment to submit that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer and employee relationship would include, inter alia, (i) The person who appoints the workmen; (ii) who pays the salary; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action and (v) whether there is any continuity of service and (vi) extent of control and supervision The counsel submits that these ingredients are totally absent in the instant case and accordingly no liability could have been fastened upon the petitioner. (c) The petitioner has also referred to judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court, ( THE SECRETARY 7 CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL VS. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND ORS., (2010) 2 Scale 739 ) and has referred to Para No. 30, 31 & 32 to submit that all the orders are required to be supported by reasons and non-recording of reasons is itself against the principles of natural justice. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND ORS., (2010) 2 Scale 739 ) and has referred to Para No. 30, 31 & 32 to submit that all the orders are required to be supported by reasons and non-recording of reasons is itself against the principles of natural justice. (d) Counsel for the petitioner has also referred the another judgment reported in (S.R. Tiwary vs. Union of India and Anr.,2013 AIRSCW 338) and has referred to Para 24 of the said judgment to submit that the concept of perversity has been well explained in the said paragraph and it has been held that if findings have been arrived by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant or inadmissible materials, the finding would be against the weight of evidence and would be perverse, it would suffer from the vice of irrationality. Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that the very fact that the petitioner as well as the private respondent no. 4 both have been held liable to pay minimum wages to the workmen, itself indicates irrationality on the part of the authorities who have passed the impugned order. m. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the arrangement made between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, the entire liability right from appointment till termination was with the private respondent no. 4. The private respondent no. 4 is certainly covered under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but the petitioner has nothing to do in the matter and neither the petitioner is the employer nor the petitioner as such is engaged with any of the schedule employment under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, accordingly, the liability can be fasten only upon the respondent no. 4 and not upon the petitioner. n. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, the respondent no. 4 has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has indicated the illegality or perversity in the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and has referred to Para 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit to submit that the respondent no. 4 has made admission that it was respondent no. 4 has filed a counter affidavit wherein he has indicated the illegality or perversity in the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and has referred to Para 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit to submit that the respondent no. 4 has made admission that it was respondent no. 4 who was making payment and the rate in connection with lifting of the cartoon as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is based on the weight of the cartoon .The discrepancy in the order passed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been indicated by the respondent no. 4 in the counter affidavit which should also be taken into consideration while deciding this writ petition. 6. During the course of argument when a query was put by the Court as to whether the petitioner had filed a written statement or show cause before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi in M. W. Case No. 24 of 2008 and as to whether the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition was ever exhibited, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed in M. W. Case No. 24 of 2008 was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner has made a specific statement in Paragraph Nos. 18 & 33 of the writ petition. He submits that even this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority and accordingly the order of the authority under the minimum wages, 1948 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly it should be set-aside. However, the petitioner has not filed the memorandum of appeal which was filed before the appellate authority along with the documents in this writ application so as to ascertain as to what grounds were taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 7. This court further finds that the writ petition which was filed by the respondent no 4 against the appellate order passed in the appeal filed by the Respondent no -4 being WPL 3973 of 2011 , which was earlier tagged with this case has been dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2018 . 8. 7. This court further finds that the writ petition which was filed by the respondent no 4 against the appellate order passed in the appeal filed by the Respondent no -4 being WPL 3973 of 2011 , which was earlier tagged with this case has been dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2018 . 8. After hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and after considering the materials available on record, this Court finds as follows:- (a)Admittedly a proceeding being M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008 was initiated against the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner has made specific plea in the writ petition that the petitioner never received any notice under the said Act and the order passed in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008 is malafide in the eyes of law. Although, nobody appears on behalf of respondent-state, but a counter affidavit has been filed in this case and it has been stated in Para 16 of the counter affidavit that in spite of receiving notice, the petitioner did not turn up and hence the order has been passed under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the competent authority. (b)This Court finds that no rejoinder has been filed to this counter affidavit. (c) Further, from the perusal of the impugned order dated 18.09.2009, this court finds that it has been recorded in that order that the opposite parties had refused to accept the notice. This fact which has been recorded in the impugned order dated 18.09.2009 has not been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner having refused to accept notice, they cannot make any grievance regarding service of notice. The petitioner on the one hand refused to accept notice and on the other hand did not appear and file its show cause before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a show cause was filed by the private respondent no. 4 only and the impugned order has been passed. However, before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a show cause was filed by the private respondent no. 4 only and the impugned order has been passed. (d)This Court finds that the petitioner in spite of service of notice (by way of refusal to accept notice) did not appear before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and did not file any show cause and accordingly the document as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition was never brought on record by the petitioner before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008. (e)This Court finds that the petitioner herein did not choose to defend their case and file show cause before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008 and accordingly, there was no issue raised before the authority as to whether there is any relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the workmen. (f) This Court finds that initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition against the impugned order 18.08.2009 and thereafter pursuant to disposal of the writ petition vide order dated 09.11.2011 the petitioner filed its appeal before the appellate authority. From the perusal of the appellate order dated 07.04.2012, it appears that the only argument which was advanced by the petitioner before the appellate authority was that there is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner is not responsible for making payment. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 07.04.2012. (g)From the perusal of the order dated 07.04.2012 it appears that even before the appellate authority the petitioner did not raise the contention that the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in Case No. 24 of 2008 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The authority after considering the grievance of the petitioner held that merely because there is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, this by itself does not absolve the petitioner from its liability and the matter was adjourned to 16.04.2012 for the purposes of distribution of money to the workmen. The authority after considering the grievance of the petitioner held that merely because there is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, this by itself does not absolve the petitioner from its liability and the matter was adjourned to 16.04.2012 for the purposes of distribution of money to the workmen. (h)This Court further finds that vide order dated 07.04.2012 the appeal which was filed by the petitioner was disposed of for all practical process and accordingly the petitioner has challenged the order by filing this writ petition. The petitioner has not even annexed a copy of the memorandum of appeal to appraise this Court as to what grounds they had taken in the memorandum of appeal and there is no averment in the writ petition that the aforesaid ground that order dated 18.08.2009 was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, was taken before the appellate authority. (i) Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that they were never served with any notice in connection with the proceeding before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008, and that the order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is hereby rejected. (j) This court finds that neither there has been any violation of principles of natural justice by the authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 nor any such plea was raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority ( as is apparent from the appellate order) and plea raised by the petitioner has been considered by the appellate authority who has held that merely because there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 , does not absolve the petitioner from its liabilities under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (k)However, this court finds that the point regarding the impact of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no -4 has been considered by the appellate authority and has been decided against the petitioner. The appellate order is under challenge in this case. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no 4 is contained in annexure1 to this writ petition. The appellate order is under challenge in this case. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no 4 is contained in annexure1 to this writ petition. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgment passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011 dated 28.04.2018 and it is the specific case of the petitioner that in this proceedings it has been held that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the workmen. Admittedly the said proceedings before Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011 was under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein the workmen had interalia, claimed regularization. (l) So far as the grievance of the petitioner in connection with the issues raised regarding relationship of employer and employee vis- -vis the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 particularly in the context of the judgment passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011 dated 28.04.2018 is concerned, this court finds that the said judgement has been passed in a totally different proceedings relating to claim of regularization under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same has no applicability in the instant case which is under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . In the said case the Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi has taken into account the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent no. 4 herein had itself terminated w.e.f. 06.04.2009 and it is stood admitted by the workmen witnesses that the services have already been terminated long back and on the date of reference, the workmen were not in service of the management. Considering the entire aspects of the matter, the tribunal held that in absence of relationship of employer and employee, the workmen were not entitled to regularization. Moreover the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are not pari materia with particular reference to the definition of employer and employee / workmen. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 gives a definition of employer and employee and therefore the point whether the workmen involved in this case are employees of the petitioner or not will have to be examined with specific reference to the definitions contained in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 gives a definition of employer and employee and therefore the point whether the workmen involved in this case are employees of the petitioner or not will have to be examined with specific reference to the definitions contained in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (m) This Court further finds that in the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner reported in (Narayan Hari Kumdhare vs. Porwal,1969 1 LLJ) passed by Hon''ble Bombay High Court, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act had refused to decide the case of the claimants on the ground that the authority did not have the jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the claimant were the employees of the opponent or not. While considering this point, the Hon''ble Bombay High Court held that the authority had the jurisdiction to decide such an issue and remanded the case to the authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In the instant case the petitioner did not choose to appear before the authority and file show cause and the appellate authority decided the case against the petitioner. The only point raised in connection with the relationship of employer and employee by the petitioner in this case is that in view of the agreement (annexure-1) between the petitioner and respondent no 4, the workmen were the employees of the respondent no 4 and not of the petitioner and there cannot be any joint and several liability between the petitioner and the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 vis a vis the workmen. (n)This Court further finds that the petitioner has vehemently argued that there cannot be two employers, petitioner as well as the private respondent no. 4, and on this ground the impugned order passed by the Assistant Labour Commission, Ranchi in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008 is perverse. (o)This court finds that the petitioner has also submitted that there is no concept of principal employer equivalent to that of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Accordingly, the same principle of the principal employer which is available in Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 cannot be applied to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Accordingly, the same principle of the principal employer which is available in Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 cannot be applied to the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (p)The definition of the employer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948:- 2 (e) "employer" means:- (i) Any person who employs, whether directly 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 under this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26; (ii) In a factory where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person named under [clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948], as manager of the factory; (iii) In any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed, the head of the department; (iv) In any scheduled employment under any local authority in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person is so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority; (v) In any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages." (q)This Court finds that as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the definition of "employer" clearly indicates that (i) any person who employs, whether directly 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 under this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26; (ii) In any factory (iii) In any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India .. (iv) In any scheduled employment under any local authority . (v) In any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages. (r) The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the respondent no. 4 is liable under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and it is the specific case of the petitioner that although the respondent no. 4 is liable, but the petitioner is not liable as there is no relationship of employer and employee. (s) In judgment passed by Hon''ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1989 PLJR 493 , the Court after considering the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and also considering the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 particularly Section 21 thereof, has clearly held that the State as the principal employer in terms of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, is statutorily bound to pay the difference in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to the concerned workmen and fasten the liability upon the State jointly and severally with the private respondent of the said case by holding the State is liable in the capacity of principal employer. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that there is no concept of principal employer under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is rejected. This court further finds that the definition of "employer" under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a very wide definition and it includes ''any person who employs whether directly or through another person'', which for all practical purposes mean the principal employer although it does not specifically use the term "principal employer". (t) Although, the agreement which is contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition was never filed by the petitioner before the authority in M. W. Case No. 24 of 2008, but from the perusal of the same it is apparent that the relevant clauses of the said agreement , for the purposes of this case are clauses 2 to 17 which are as follows:- "2. The Company shall consign from time to time its products to the godown manned by the C&F Agent by air, Water-ways, road or rail which the C&F Agent shall receiv,e stock and hold on behalf of the Company, at its godown. 3. The C & F Agent shall service the market requirement in the agreed areas : and/or such other areas as may be directed or changed by the Company from time to time at its discretion. However, nothing said in this clause shall prejudice the right of the Company to directly effect supply in the area or cause other agencie /C&F Agent to effect such supply in the area or cause other agencies/C & F Agent to effect such supplies within the area earmarked to the C&F Agent. 4.The goods shall be despatched by the Company directly to the C&F Agent freight paid, booked for delivery at the godown or to the nearest railway, shipyard, ferry, airport or lorry office. Expenses incurred by the C&F Agent towards freight inwards from such place of clearance, other than cases of delivery at the godown, shall be borne by the Company at actuals. 5. The goods received by the C&F Agent from the Company shall be stored by them in the godown or godowns manned by C&F Agent for and on behalf of the Company and the C&F Agent shall display sign board indicating that the goods belong to and are the property of the Company. 6. The goods entrusted to the C&F Agent for the purpose of the Agreement remain the property of the Company and the stocks and accounts are open to inspection by the Officers of the Company at all reasonable hours with or without notice and the officers of the Company shall, inspect conditions of good thereof, make inventory thereof, take charge of and remove the said goods or any part of the goods, without any let or hindrance from the C&F Agent and if so required, the C&F Agent shall remain bound to hand over immediately the charge of the godown together with all keys to the Company and permit the Company to put in locks at all exists of the godown. 7. 7. The C&F Agent shall be responsible for the safety of the goods entrusted by the Company from the time of receipt of the goods till such goods are issued out of the godown as per instruction of the Company. Notwithstanding any insurance taken by the Company the C&F Agent shall be liable to make good any loss caused to the Company as a result of pilferage, theft, robbery or damage or destruction of the goods excluding acts of God. 8. While receiving the goods for stocking, the C&F Agent shall verify that the goods are in good condition. If for any reason damage or injury to the goods is noticed the C&F Agent should promptly record their assessment of the damage and obtain the signatures of the carriers. A record in this regard shall be communicated promptly to the company to enable the Company to take up follow up action. If the goods are received by rail, or any other mode of transport the C&F Agent should take open delivery whenever loss or damage to the goods in transit is noticed or suspected. Steps should be taken by the C&F Agent for prompt preference of claim with the Railway. The C&F Agents will remain liable to keep the Company fully indemnified against any loss or damage not detected at the time of clearance of the goods and/or not recorded by them with the carrier while taking delivery of the goods. 9. The C&F Agent shall promptly comply with invoicing/delivery/dispatch instructions of the Company and shall cause to be delivered to the authorized transport contractors of the Company the required quantity of the goods for movement to the Company''s stockists, dealer or other godowns. 10. The C&F Agent shall while dispatching the goods from the godowns, employ for transportation, the Company''s printed standardized delivery challan/proforma invoices, along with the statutory delivery note prescribed under local sales tax law. If any other document is used for the purpose of transportation and issued to the carrears, it shall be only in the proforma approved by the Company. 11. The C&F Agent shall submit to the Company statements in forms prescribed by the Company containing details of stocks received, held and distributed. These statements shall be submitted at such time and as such intervals as may be instructed by the Company. 12. 11. The C&F Agent shall submit to the Company statements in forms prescribed by the Company containing details of stocks received, held and distributed. These statements shall be submitted at such time and as such intervals as may be instructed by the Company. 12. The C&F Agent shall in Company''s name raise invoices on the Company Redistribution Stockists/Dealers for the value of the goods despatched to them as per instructions of the Company and banking the Cheque/drafts of R.S.s/Dealers and submitting to the Company details thereof in the formats prescribed together with all necessary returns as are incidental thereto. 13. The C&F Agent will be entitled to remuneration as agreed between the parties or as revised by the Company from time to time save and except such remuneration, the C&F Agent shall not be entitled to any remuneration, reimbursement or any monetary benefits for any work rendered under this Agreement unless the same is agreed to by the Company in writing. 14. On the termination of the agreement hereby created the C&F Agent shall forthwith return to the Company the possession of this godown together with all the goods remaining in the godown or godowns and also all books, registers and all others paper pertaining to this agreement. 15. The Company shall not be deemed to have waived their rights nor the C&F Agent exonerated from their obligations, from the failure of the Company to enforce strict observance of the terms of the Agreement by the C&F Agent. 16. The C & F Agent shall remain liable to comply with all formalities required under any local laws and/or control orders and/or State Government Rules and shall take all necessary steps for obtaining registrations, licenses, renewals thereof, maintaining proper registers and also submitting necessary returns to the authorities. In the event of any contraventions of the provisions of the local laws as a result of failure of the C & F Agent to comply with the requirements the C & F Agent shall remain fully liable and shall also keep the Company indemnified against any risk and/or cost arising thereof. 17. In the event of any contraventions of the provisions of the local laws as a result of failure of the C & F Agent to comply with the requirements the C & F Agent shall remain fully liable and shall also keep the Company indemnified against any risk and/or cost arising thereof. 17. It shall be the duty of the C&F Agent to comply with all labour laws and pay to its employees minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act and Notifications thereunder, comply with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, ESI Act and all other labour laws applicable to the workmen. It is expressly made clear that this Agreement entered into with the C&F Agent is on a principal to principal basis and the Company will have no relationship whatsoever with the employees employed by the C&F Agent and it will be their sole responsibility and discretion as an independent employer to employ, supervise, discharge and remunerate its employees on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and in the event of any employee or any Government authority making any claim on the Company, the C&F Agent will defend the same and indemnify the Company for all such claims." (emphasis supplied) (u)From the perusal of the aforesaid clauses of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no 4, it is clear that the goods which are handled by the respondent no 4 belong to the petitioner and the goods are being handled for and on behalf of the petitioner and the godowns manned by C&F Agent (respondent no 4) are also for and on behalf of the petitioner Company. (v)The counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon clause 17 of the agreement where the petitioner and the respondent no 4 have made stipulation in the agreement at clause 17 that the respondent no 4 would be liable to comply with all labour laws including payment of minimum wages and if any liability comes upon the petitioner company, the respondent no. 4 would indemnify the petitioner in all such claims. It has also been mentioned in this clause that the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no 4 is on principal to principal basis. 4 would indemnify the petitioner in all such claims. It has also been mentioned in this clause that the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no 4 is on principal to principal basis. This court is of the considered view that the liability under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be fastened exclusively upon the respondent no 4 by virtue of an agreement and the liability would be joint and several if the parties otherwise falls within the definition of "employer" as defined under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act,1948. Further, once it is found that the petitioner falls within the definition of employer vis a vis the workmen there is no need to examine as to whether the petitioner has any control or supervision over the workmen and the liability would fall upon the petitioner only by virtue of being covered by the definition of employer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Upon perusal of the various clauses of the aforesaid agreement which have been quoted above, it is apparent that the petitioner had engaged the workmen through the respondent no. 4 for handling its goods in godowns manned by the respondent no 4 for and on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 is also under an obligation to display sign board indicating that the goods belong to and are the property of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is covered within the definition of "employer" as the definition includes the person who employs workmen whether directly or through other person. Accordingly the liability of the petitioner is joint and several with the respondent no 4. The agreement indicating that the respondent no 4 will be liability for the compliances of all labour laws and that the agreement is on principal to principal basis does not absolve the petitioner from its liability and duties under the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 once it is found (clearly stipulated in the agreement itself) that the petitioner had employed the workmen for its goods through the respondent no 4 in godowns manned by the respondent no 4 for and on behalf of the petitioner .The appellate court in the instant case has clearly held that the petitioner is jointly and severally liable with the private respondent no. 4. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the appellate authority. 4. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the appellate authority. (w) So far as the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in BALWANT RAI SALUJA & ANR. VS. AIR INDIA LTD. & ORS., (2014) 9 SCALE 567 ) is concerned, the Hon''ble Supreme Court while answering the reference clearly held that the workers engaged by a contractor to work in the statutory canteens of the factory would be worker of the said factory, but only for the purposes of the Factories Act , 1948. In the said case, the Factories Act of 1948 was under consideration. This court finds that the concept of employer or occupier under the factories Act, 1948 has no applicability in the instant case as the establishment involved in this case is admittedly not a factory and the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has its own unique definition of employer and employee. Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case. (x) So far as the contention of the petitioner that this Court should also consider the ground which has been taken by the private respondent no. 4 in the counter affidavit assailing the impugned order, this court is not inclined to consider such ground as the petitioner has not challenged the quantum and the manner of calculation of liability in the writ petition and further the independent writ petition which was filed by private respondent no. 4 has already been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.12.2018 passed in W.P. (L) No. 3973 of 2011. Moreover, this Court is not inclined to reappreciate such facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has lost before both the authorities below and has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. (y)In view of the aforesaid findings and facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (z) Pending I.As. are hereby dismissed as not pressed.