Indu Malhotra JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 530/1998 and order dated 18.01.2008 in LPA No. 620/1998 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant herein and confirmed the orders of the Single Judge dated 31.03.1998 passed in CWJC No. 12009/1996 and dated 22.04.1998 in CWJC No. 12010/1996.
2. The controversy involved in these appeals lies in a narrow compass as would be clear from the few facts mentioned hereinbelow.
3. Two persons, namely, Santosh Kumar and Hira Singh filed their claim petitions before the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") against the Appellant herein being case Nos. MW (2)-19/93 and MW (2)-20/93.
4. In these claim petitions, the Respondents claimed that they had worked with the Appellant on her land for the period from 01.01.1991 to 30.10.1992 but she did not pay them their legitimate wages despite rendering their services for her.
5. This, in substance, was their grievance. The two applicants (workers/employees), therefore, claimed that their legitimate wages for the period in question be determined in the light of the provisions of the Act and the claimants be accordingly paid their minimum wages for the period in question by the Appellant.
6. The Appellant contested the matter. An enquiry was accordingly held. Report from the concerned authority was also called for. By order dated 29.10.1995 the competent authority allowed the claim petitions of the two workers and accordingly directed the Appellant (employer) to pay them wages as determined along with the penalty amount awarded by the authority.
7. The Appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. By order dated 08.10.1996, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the competent authority.
8. The Appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court at Patna. By orders dated 31.03.1998 and 22.04.1998, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Appellant felt aggrieved and filed LPAs before the Division Bench in the High Court. By impugned orders, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals, which have given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by the Appellant (employer) in this Court.
9. The short question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the orders passed by the two authorities under the Act.
10. We have heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents and have also perused the written submissions filed by the counsel for the Appellant.
11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the written submissions of the learned Counsel, we find no merit in these appeals.
12. In our considered opinion, no case has been made out to call for any interference in the impugned orders for more than one reason. Firstly, what is involved in this case is a pure question of fact which cannot be gone into in these appeals; Secondly, the question as to whether the two workers ever worked with........