ORDER : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), in Claim Application No.054/2012-R.L.C. (R), lodged by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, Under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whereby and whereunder the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, partly allowed the Claim Application and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.11,40,411/- (Eleven lakh forty thousand four hundred eleven only) as the aforesaid amount includes the difference of wages of Rs. 3,03,549/- and OT Wages of Rs.37,054/- and compensation of Rs. 7,99,808/- in lieu of the difference of wages, OT Wages and compensation of Thirty six labourers/workers engaged in the establishment of the petitioner, employed at Hatia Station for sweeping and cleaning of coaches under Senior Division, Southern Railway, as the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages required to be paid as per rate prescribed by the Government Notifications. 3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner-A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd. is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 0/116 First Floor Shopping Mall D.L.P. City Phase-I Gurgaon Haryana. It is the case of the petitioner that an inspection was done under Section 19(1) of M.W. Act, 1948 where it was found that the wages which was being paid to workers was less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under notification No.SO. 1994 (E) dated 7.8.08 read with order No.1/10(6)/2010-LS-II dated 28.9.10 & order No.1/5 (6)/2011-LS-II dated 25.3.11 of Government of India for the period between 1.10.10 to 31.5.11. Inspection report was issued to the petitioner on 28.6.11 for payment of difference of wages/O.T. wages but petitioner-Company did not pay the difference between the wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the wages actually paid to the employees. Again on account of non-payment of difference of wages to the workers, the Labour Enforcement Officer filed a Claim Application being Claim Application No.54/2012 RLC (R) before the competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Again on account of non-payment of difference of wages to the workers, the Labour Enforcement Officer filed a Claim Application being Claim Application No.54/2012 RLC (R) before the competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. After hearing the parties, the Regional Labour Commissioner allowed the Claim Application with a direction to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.11,40,411/- (Eleven lakh forty thousand four hundred eleven only) in lieu of difference of wages/O.T. wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application. 4. Mr. P.A.S.Pati, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order strenuously urges that without considering the facts and the relevant documents, illegally and arbitrarily the learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi issued notice to the petitioner for non-payment of difference of wages, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned Counsel further argues that the petitioner had already verified the difference of wages paid to the workers and had made payment to 17 workers on the revised rate (wages) on the basis of actual number of days worked by the labours after making statutory deductions. Further 18 workers in claim list were not employed by them. Another 12 workers whose names are mentioned in claim list were also party in MW Claim No.17/2011-RLC (R) and the matter is subjudice and under consideration of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.5451/2011 wherein stay order has been granted. The petitioner produced 10 workers and their statements were recorded. The said 10 workers stated that they have received the difference amount from respondent employer. 6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the impugned order and argues that the petitioner-Company is a licensed contractor under the CL (R&A) Act, 1970 and as per its terms and conditions, the petitioner is required to pay minimum rate of wages to workers as prescribed under Section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per Section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the petitioner is required to pay OT Wage to employee for working on weekly rest days. Besides, the petitioner is required to maintain register of wages, muster roll etc. under the Rule 78 and disburse wages to workers in compliance with Rule 73 of CL (R & A) Central Rules 1971. Besides, the petitioner is required to maintain register of wages, muster roll etc. under the Rule 78 and disburse wages to workers in compliance with Rule 73 of CL (R & A) Central Rules 1971. The petitioner is also required to maintain wage registers, muster roll etc. and issue wage slips to workers under Rule 26 MW Central Rules, 1950. Learned Counsel impress upon the Court that Respondent No.3 was fully empowered under Section 19 of MW Act, 1948 to inspect the establishment of the petitioner-Company engaged at Hatia Railway Station for cleaning of coaches and on inspection it was found that the workers were being paid wages at the rates less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under notification No.SO. 1994 (E) dated 7.8.08 read with order No.1/10(6)/2010-LS-II dated 28.9.10 & order No.1/5 (6)/2011-LS-II dated 25.3.11 of Government of India. The irregularities committed by the petitioner as pointed out in the inspection report was never rectified. 8. Learned Counsel further argues that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and is trying to misguide the Court and the Company is deliberately depriving the poor workers of their legitimate dues. To buttress his argument, learned Counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. vrs. Union of India & Others”, reported in [ (1982)3 SCC 235 : 1982 SCC (L & S) 275]. 9. Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan argues that the Regional Labour Commissioner was fully justified in directing the petitioner to pay the amount, as mentioned in the said order, as the workers are duly entitled for the same. 10. Be that as it may, having heard the Counsel for the parties, this Court is in full agreement with the justification given by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Ranchi under the M.W. Act. Admittedly, inspection report clarified that the labourers/workers were paid amount less than what was prescribed under Section 20 (3) (i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner-Company did not pay the statutory minimum wages to the workers in view of notification dated 25.03.2010 of Government of India. Admittedly, the wages paid to the workers were less than the minimum rates of wages notified under the Act. The petitioner-Company did not pay the statutory minimum wages to the workers in view of notification dated 25.03.2010 of Government of India. Admittedly, the wages paid to the workers were less than the minimum rates of wages notified under the Act. As per Section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the employer is required to pay minimum wages to employee and as per Section 13 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the petitioner is required to pay OT Wage to employee for working on weekly rest days. Disbursement of difference wage was never verified neither any wage slip were issued to workers. It is settled principle of law that as a licensed contractor under the CL (R & A) Act, 1970, the workers are not only entitled to get payment of wages at a rate not less than the minimum wages but also the payment has to be disbursed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 11. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and hence this writ petition is dismissed. 12. The petitioner-Management is directed to pay the entire amount as per order of the Ld. Court-below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.