ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an order, direction or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 29.08.2018 in M.W. No. 5 of 2015 of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and unenforceable and pass such further or other orders.....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a private company registered under the Companies Act and it is dealing with engineering goods. The company is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Employees State Insurance Act and it complies with all the Labour enactments. The company engages contract labour in terms of the Provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Rules made there under. While so, respondent No. 2 inspected the unit on 18.03.2015 and filed MW Case No. 5 of 2015 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Rs. 5,17,402/- along with compensation for workers engaged by the petitioner. 3. Respondent No. 1 initially passed order on 20.05.2016 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 31,04,412/-. Petitioner did not contest the matter initially. The order of respondent No. 1 was challenged before the composite High Court by filing W.P. No. 39493 of 2016. The same was allowed setting the said order and the matter was remitted with a direction to respondent No. 1 to rehear both the parties and pass appropriate orders afresh. 4. Subsequent to the order passed in W.P. No. 39493 of 2016 respondent No. 1 passed the order, impugned in the writ petition, without considering the relevant factors and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,17,402/- along with one time claim amount as compensation totaling to Rs.10,34,804/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Respondent No. 1 filed counter and contended inter-alia that as per G.O.Ms. No. 33, dated 27.08.2022, the petitioner establishment falls under the category of a Factory under Section 2(m) of the Act, with 300 employees working therein. Respondent No. 2 is the authority notified under the said G.O. conducted inspection. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Respondent No. 1 filed counter and contended inter-alia that as per G.O.Ms. No. 33, dated 27.08.2022, the petitioner establishment falls under the category of a Factory under Section 2(m) of the Act, with 300 employees working therein. Respondent No. 2 is the authority notified under the said G.O. conducted inspection. Accordingly, respondent No. 2, after inspection, filed claim before respondent No. 1 being competent and notified authority to deal with such claims. It is further contended that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised before respondent No. 1 in the claim proceedings. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard, Sri Koka Satayanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions in the writ affidavit further submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay the alleged difference of minimum wages as ordered by respondent No. 1. He submits that respondent No. 1 failed to see that the information furnished to respondent No. 2, at the time of inspection, was not correct. The figures mentioned in the application are not true and correct. He submits that respondent No. 2 failed to consider the statement signed and stamped by the branch manager of the SBI towards showing actual salary paid through employees’ bank account. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non-consideration of the statement and records produced by the petitioner as PW1 is illegal and improper. He submits that respondent No. 1 failed to see that petitioner is not liable to pay the alleged difference of minimum wages of Rs. 5,17,402/- to the employees referred to in the application and the respondents failed to appreciate that there is no dispute or claim from any of the employees working under the petitioner. He further submits that the claim made by respondent No. 2 on behalf of alleged beneficiaries is erroneous and contrary to the factual scenario and there is no dispute with reference to the designation given to the employees. He submits that burden of proof is on respondent No. 2 to establish that the designations given by the petitioner for the work undertaken by the employees are not according to the work undertaken. 9. He submits that burden of proof is on respondent No. 2 to establish that the designations given by the petitioner for the work undertaken by the employees are not according to the work undertaken. 9. Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No. 1 is competent authority and he has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition. He also would submit that no objection was raised before the authority regarding jurisdiction. Having submitted to the jurisdiction and after passing of the order, for the first-time petitioner is challenging jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition. He also submits that respondent No. 1, on consideration of material available on record, passed the order. 10. This Court by order, dated 10.12.2018, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay subject to the condition of petitioner depositing 50% of the compensation amount before respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks from the date of said order. However, no compliance report is filed before this Court. 11. Petitioner is challenging the order impugned passed by respondent No. 1, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,17,402/- along with one time claim amount as compensation totaling to Rs. 10,34,804/-. The main plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 lacks jurisdiction. 12. The objection qua jurisdiction was not put forth before notified authority, respondent No. 1. For the first-time petitioner raised such plea in this writ petition. Vide G.O.Ms. No. 51 Labour, Employment Training and Factories (Lab.IV) Department, dated 29.10.2013, pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the claims is being amended. As per said G.O. Assistant Commissioner of Labour shall take up the claims up to Rs. 50,000/-. Beyond/exceeding Rs. 50,000/- and up to Rs. 2,00,000/- claim shall be entertained by Deputy Commissioner of Labour and in respect of the claims above Rs. 2,00,000/- it shall be taken up by Joint Commissioner of Labour. 13. In this case on hand, respondent No. 2 being the competent authority conducted inspection. Having found irregularities filed claim before respondent No. 1. As per the G.O. respondent No. 1 is notified and competent authority to deal with the claim. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 entertained the claim and after recording evidence and considering the evidence on record, passed order impugned in the writ petition. Having found irregularities filed claim before respondent No. 1. As per the G.O. respondent No. 1 is notified and competent authority to deal with the claim. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 entertained the claim and after recording evidence and considering the evidence on record, passed order impugned in the writ petition. Thus, this court of this considered opinion that respondent No. 1 being the notified authority is competent and having jurisdiction to decide the claim filed by respondent No. 2. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that, no objection was raised when respondent No. 1 is dealing with the matter. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 lacks inherent jurisdiction. Pecuniary jurisdiction of respondent No. 1, as per the G.O. is above Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No. 1 is having jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by respondent No. 2 being the immediate superior. Apart from that without raising the issue of jurisdiction before respondent No. 1, having been participated in the proceedings and after passing of the order petitioner cannot now raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court holds that respondent No. 1 is competent to entertain and adjudicate the dispute/claim. Thus the contention of the learned counsel that respondent No. 1 lacks jurisdiction falls to ground. 15. The other plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned was passed without considering relevant factors and proper appreciation of the evidence. Thus, petitioner is not liable to pay the compensation amount. In fact, employees were being paid more than minimum wages. 16. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced in view of the material available on record. As can be seen from the order impugned, petitioner herein, who was examined as RW-1 before the authority, deposed that he was paying wages more than minimum wages to some workers and little less to some workers. Manager of the company, who was present during inspection, admitted that some workers were paid less than minimum wages. Though statements of seventy-one workers were recorded, claim was filed for fifty workers only. The admission of RW-1 during the examination was taken note by the authority. In fact, respondent No. 1 considered all the objections of the petitioner while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. 17. Though statements of seventy-one workers were recorded, claim was filed for fifty workers only. The admission of RW-1 during the examination was taken note by the authority. In fact, respondent No. 1 considered all the objections of the petitioner while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. 17. After considering the evidence adduced on either side respondent No. 1 concluded that petitioner is liable to pay the compensation amount to the workers, who were paid less than minimum wages. The order passed by respondent No. 1 neither suffers from violation of principles of natural justice nor jurisdiction. This Court finds no illegality in the order passed by respondent No. 1. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the compensation after deducting the amount, if any, paid before the Minimum Wages Authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed.