M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 21.5.2001, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central. Dhanbad, respondent No. 1 -cum -authority under the Mini mum Wages Act whereby he has held that a sum of Rs. 35,350/ - as less payment and compensation is payable by the petitioner to the workmen. It appears that at the instance of the Labour Enforcement Officer, a complaint was made before respondent No. 1 alleging less payment by the petitioner to her workman engaged in the crushing of stone -chips. Respondent No. 1 initiated a proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act and passed the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Binod Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 2000 LLJ (2) 692 and submitted that if there is a case of less payment then the jurisdiction is vested in the authorities under the payment of Wages Act,;