WRIT Pa‘miow NOJmQiiggqg 0%§\99 k9g PETITIONER M/s Ramesn Construction mompany. C70 Ramesh Chewada, Near Gujyat! Samaj, ‘ Ramdas Nagar. Tikrapara, Disn. mlaSpur (CG). Versus Premding Gfficer. Rag‘ona; Labour Cammiss%cnar (Carma! Biock N010, C§vic Center, Madhaiai, Jahaipur). 2. Labou! Enfemement Offiser (Carma! Behind Baiaji Mamiie’, Anand Nagar, RaiuurL Assistant Labour Ccmméssmner ( entra§ Behind Baiaji Mandir. Anand Nagar, Raipur}. ()n RESPONDE3NL§ (Writ petition unaier Articie 228 am’ 227 a? the Consiiiuiion 6f ina’ia) Singie Bench 2 Hon‘ble Shri Sat‘sh K. Agm‘na‘cri, J. Present :— Shri Azad Siddique, oounsei for the oetiEoner. QRDER g"OF€AL} (Passed on thi$ 4‘“ day of $eptember, 2mg) Heard Iearnet: counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner. by this petmon, impugns "me ardeqr dated 12-12w2f363 (Annexwe —- P/T) passed by the Auimnty umser Minimum Wagea Act, 1948 anus fEegionai Labour Commrsskmer (Central), Jabaipw! m review petmon. The petitioner has not chaiiengeo the iegality and vatidiiy of the main order. which was sought to be reviewed before the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regionai Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur. On peruse! of the omen it appears that the oetitiener ie not paying the minimum wees as provided under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to the iowest paid empioyees, in the present case 7 workers. it is further found that no sufficient cause was shown for remewing the main order. which is not under cnaiienge in tnis petrtion. Thue, mere is no error, irreguierity and iiiegaiity in the impugned order warranting interference by this (3ourt. in the result, the writ petition re iiaote to be and is aocordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. Gori w Sd/— Satish K. Agm'hou-i 13‘ Judge