ORDER : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P(L) No.5141 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: (i) The petitioner-Company is engaged in manufacturing of explosives for the mining activities as well as engaged in electronic and allied services. The Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (in short, UCIL) invited tenders for "removal of Overburden/Waste and excavation of Uranium Ore from Banduhurang Open Cast Mine and transportation of ore to the ground hopper at Turumdih or any other specified area". (ii) The petitioner-Company participated in the said tender, and consequently was declared successful in the tender process. The Deputy Manager (Mines), UCIL vide Work Order No.972 dated 26.02.2010 accepted the offer of the petitioner-Company and issued Work Order in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner-Company has been engaged in execution of the aforesaid work and employed contractual workers who have been paid by the petitioner-Company properly. (iv) The Labour Enforcement Officer, Central inspected the establishment of the petitioner-Company working at Chaibasa who after said inspection directed the petitioner-Company to report compliance with regard to certain irregularities in payment of minimum wages to the contractual workers alleging therein that the petitioner-Company has been paying less than the minimum wages to the contractual workers as per the Government Notification. (v) The Government of India vide its letter dated 30.01.2013 informed the petitioner-Company as well as the President of Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union that the Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication as the workers are engaged at Opencast Mines and the Union is demanding for below ground wages which is not a part of industrial dispute. (vi) That based on the inspection report, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Chaibasa filed an application being M.W. Claim Application No. (130) 2013/LEO/CHI under section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 before the appropriate authority, i.e, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. (vi) That based on the inspection report, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Chaibasa filed an application being M.W. Claim Application No. (130) 2013/LEO/CHI under section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 before the appropriate authority, i.e, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. (vii) The petitioner-Company appeared in the proceeding and filed its written statement denying the allegation made against it and stated therein that it is paying minimum wages to the workers and they are also providing other benefits at the rate of Opencast Mines as per the Act of 1948. (viii) In the said proceeding of MINIMUM WAGES ACT , the evidence has been adduced by the petitioner-Company denying the allegation that the workers are working in more than six meters depth and it was found to be below ground. (ix) On consideration of the rival submission made on behalf of the parties and going through the material available on record, the adjudicatory authority, i.e., the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad has passed an order directing the petitioner- Company to deposit an amount of Rs.86,70,688/- which includes difference amount of wages of Rs.21,67,672/- and compensation of Rs.65,03,016/- to be paid for a common transaction in favour of the labourers who have been engaged in execution of the work by the petitioner-Company. (x) Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Company approached before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition being W.P(L) No.5141 of 2023 who vide order dated 16.07.2024 has declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. (xi) Thereafter, the petitioner-Company has approached before this Court by filing the instant appeal. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that a dispute had been raised by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Chaibasa claiming therein that an amount of Rs.86,70,688/- which includes difference amount of wages of Rs.21,67,672/- and compensation of Rs.65,03,016/- to be paid for a common transaction in favour of the labourers who have been engaged in execution of the mining work. The case so filed under section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 has been allowed by the appropriate authority vide order dated 21.07.2023. 4. The appropriate authority has decided the issue on the basis of the inspection report made by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Chaibasa on 15.02.2012 in presence of the representative of the petitioner-Company, namely, Mr. The case so filed under section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 has been allowed by the appropriate authority vide order dated 21.07.2023. 4. The appropriate authority has decided the issue on the basis of the inspection report made by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Chaibasa on 15.02.2012 in presence of the representative of the petitioner-Company, namely, Mr. Sanjiv Ranjan, Assistant Manager (Personnel) and one representative of UCIL, who had put their respective signature. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Company approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P(L) No.5141 of 2023. 6. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on consideration of the concurrent finding has arrived on the basis of the inspection report having been accepted by the representative of the petitioner-Company has declined to interfere with the impugned order and, hence, the present appeal. Submission on behalf of the appellant-Company: 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company in support of his contention has raised the following grounds: (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the learned adjudicatory authority has not appreciated the fact so as also the learned Single Judge that the amount which has been directed to be paid by the petitioner-Company is to be paid by the UCIL, since, the appellant has entered into a contract with the UCIL and whatever money has been paid in terms of the contract, the payment has been made to the labourers, but this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration. (ii) The inspection report has been taken into consideration by the authority which ought not to have been reason being that the work could not be said to be performed by the labourers as per the contract and merely on the basis of the inspection report without leading any evidence to that effect, the same has been accepted, hence, the impugned order based upon the said inspection report in absence of any evidence cannot be relied upon but this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company based upon the aforesaid ground, initially, has contested the case by showing the error in the impugned order. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: 9. Mr. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company based upon the aforesaid ground, initially, has contested the case by showing the error in the impugned order. Submission on behalf of the Respondents: 9. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: (i) The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no error in the impugned orders passed by the authority or even by the learned Single Judge due to the reason that nature of work has been inspected by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Chaibasa in presence of the representative of the Company who has found, on field inspection, regarding the work performance said to be more than six meters depth and it was below ground. (ii) It has been contended that since the said inspection report has been admitted by the appellant being carried in presence of its representative and, as such, it is not available for the petitioner- Company to take the ground that there is no proper consideration being made by the adjudicatory authority. (iii) It has been submitted that the agreement might be in between the UCIL and the petitioner-Company, but the fact about engaging the labourers by the petitioner-Company is not in dispute. 10. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground by referring the purport of section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 has submitted that the labourers since had worked more than six meters depth and it was found to be below ground as per the inspection report and on that parameter the adjudicatory authority has come to conclusion in favour of the labourers of less payment being made by the petitioner- Company and in consequence thereof a direction has been issued to pay the difference of wages along with the compensatory interest and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 11. Upon such submission, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the fact about engaging the labourers by the petitioner-Company is not disputed. The fact about the inspection report having been signed in presence of two representative of the petitioner-Company can also not be disputed and as such the said fact is also admitted by him. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the fact about engaging the labourers by the petitioner-Company is not disputed. The fact about the inspection report having been signed in presence of two representative of the petitioner-Company can also not be disputed and as such the said fact is also admitted by him. However, he has also admitted the fact that the contract is in between the UCIL and the petitioner- Company to which the labourers has got no concern and if the work has been taken from such labourers, then it is the duty of the petitioner- Company to make payment of the wages in order to follow the spirit of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as also the order passed by the adjudicatory authority dated 21.07.2023. 13. The admitted fact herein is that the petitioner-Company has been awarded a work by the UCIL to carry out the mining operation to have the six meters depth in the underground mining area. The wages for such labour work are more than the wages which has been fixed for normal labour work. The petitioner-Company has engaged the labourers to carry out the aforesaid work but they have been paid less payment. The labourers have made complaint to the Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, Chaibasa who conducted an inspection in presence of the representative of the petitioner-Company, namely, Mr. Sanjiv Ranjan, Assistant Manager (Personnel) and one representative of UCIL. 14. It was found in the inspection report that the work which was executed by the labourers was more than six meters depth and below ground. The representative of the petitioner-Company had put their signature in the said inspection report. The Labour Enforcement Officer, thereafter, has made a claim on behalf of the labourers to make payment of difference of wages but having not paid, and in consequence thereof, the complaint has been filed under section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948. 15. The appropriate authority in exercise of its power conferred under section 20(2) of the Act of 1948 has decided the issue after leading evidence as also taking into consideration the documents, particularly, the inspection report which was duly signed by the representative of the petitioner-Company, namely, Mr. 15. The appropriate authority in exercise of its power conferred under section 20(2) of the Act of 1948 has decided the issue after leading evidence as also taking into consideration the documents, particularly, the inspection report which was duly signed by the representative of the petitioner-Company, namely, Mr. Sanjiv Ranjan, Assistant Manager (Personnel) and one representative of UCIL. 16. The following direction was passed by the adjudicatory authority, i.e, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in M.W. Claim Application No. (130) 2013/LEO/CHI which is being quoted hereinbelow as: “8. In view of the above discussion and findings, this application is partly allowed and this Authority hereby direct the Opponent to deposit Rs.86,70,688/- (Rupees eighty six lakh seventy thousand six hundred eighty eight only) which includes difference amount of wages of Rs. 21,67,672/- and compensation of Rs.65,03,016.00 with this Authority through Demand Draft drawn in favour of RLC(C), Dhanbad & Authority under MW Act, 1948 payable at Dhanbad within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. The Applicant is directed to disburse the above awarded amount when deposited to the workers as mentioned above according to prescribed procedure and submit his report.” 17. Against that, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition being W.P(L) No.5141 of 2023 in which the learned Single Judge on consideration of the fact finding of the adjudicatory authority and primarily relying upon the inspection report which has been taken into consideration by the concerned authority, has refused to interfere with the same, hence, the present appeal. 18. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company although has taken the ground of non-consideration of the issue of contract where the contract is in between the UCIL and the petitioner-Company and whatever money has been given by the UCIL to be incurred for execution of operation of mining work unless it will be paid then only question of disbursement of the said amount will be there. 19. But, this Court is not in agreement with such submission reason being that when the fact has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company itself that the labourers have been engaged by the petitioner-Company, then it is the liability of the petitioner-Company to make payment towards the work performed by the labourers. 19. But, this Court is not in agreement with such submission reason being that when the fact has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company itself that the labourers have been engaged by the petitioner-Company, then it is the liability of the petitioner-Company to make payment towards the work performed by the labourers. Admittedly, the work has been performed six meters below the ground as per the inspection report which was carried in presence of the representative of the petitioner-Company, namely, Mr. Sanjiv Ranjan, Assistant Manager (Personnel) and one representative of UCIL who had put their signature over there. 20. The inspection report, therefore, cannot be disputed and the same has also not been disputed by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company during course of argument. 21. The original adjudicatory authority has taken into consideration the inspection report and passed a direction to make payment of difference of wages of amounting to Rs.86,70,688/- which includes difference amount of wages of Rs.21,67,672/- and compensation of Rs.65,03,016/- which has also been approved by the appellate authority as well as by the learned Single Judge. 22. The question therefore would be that when the work inspection report which cannot be disputed by the petitioner-Company and being not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Company also, then how can the order passed by the adjudicatory authority is said to be suffer from an error. 23. The aforesaid fact, however, in course of the argument has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company and, therefore, the submission has been made that he is having no difficulty in making payment of the amount in favour of the labourers as has been assessed by the adjudicatory authority, but he has sought for a liberty to raise the claim with the UCIL. 24. Such submission has seriously been objected by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that the disbursement of the further amount of claim to be made depends upon the terms and conditions of contract. 25. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this Court cannot rewrite the terms and conditions of contract in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. 25. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this Court cannot rewrite the terms and conditions of contract in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. This Court has considered the aforesaid rival submissions and is in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the terms and conditions of the contract cannot be rewritten by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27. The claim or any issue which is to be raised by the petitioner- Company is strictly in pursuance to the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no such direction can be passed giving such liberty to the petitioner-Company to raise the claim from the UCIL. 28. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the adjudicatory authority as also the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and, consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 29. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company, at this juncture, has submitted that the petitioner- Company may be given an opportunity to work out the remedy in this regard. 30. The same has not been objected by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 31. This Court, considering the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the parties, is granting liberty to the petitioner-Company to search out the remedy for the same. 32. With the aforesaid observation, L.P.A No.536 of 2024 stands dismissed and disposed of as such. 33. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.