Judgment

VARADARAJAN, J. :- These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Justice (B. J. Diwan) of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Applications Nos. 1434 to 1437 of 1973. Those Civil Revision Applications (hereinafter referred to as Revisions) were preferred against the judgment of the Civil Judge, (junior Division) Vijapur as the authority appointed under S. 20 (i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Vijapur Taluka in Civil Misc. Applications Nos. 1 and 2 of 1970 and 1 and 2 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as applications). The four Revisions raised a common question of law and were disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The applications before the Minimum Wages Authority were filed by the Gujarat Government Labour Officer and Minimum Wages inspector for Mehsana district against the Taluka Development officer, Vijapur Taluka and District Development Officer (Panchayat) Mehsana. The Minimum Wages Inspector contended in those applications that the four employees, Ishwerbhai Prahladbhai, Dayabhai Umeddass, Kanjibhai Shankarbhai and Nathalal Maganlal, working in the Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat as Tube-well Operators at Delvada and Vihar villages, fall within the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had been made to work for more hours than what is prescribed under the Act and they were entitled to over-time wages of Rs. 3,018.40 and Rs. 3,769.05 in respect of Ishwerbhai Prahladbhai and Dayabhai Umeddass respectively for the period from September 1969 to February 1970, and Rs. 3,082/- for the period from October 1970 to March 1971 and Rs. 1,178.25 for the transitional period of April and May 1971 in respect of Kanjibhai Shankarbhai and Rs. 3,962.40 and Rs. 1,237.80 for those identical periods in respect of Nathalal Maganlal. Directions under Sec. 20 of the Act for payment of those amounts together with further sums for the period during which the applications were pending were prayed for in the applications.

3. The respondents in, the applications denied that the four employees are working under any District Panchayat and contended that they were work-charged employees in the State service and that on the introduction of Panchayat Raj in the State of Gujarat with effect from 1-4-1963 as per the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, the maintenance of tubewells and further extension of tubewells and their maintenance and the work-charged establishment relating to the tubewells were transferred to the District Panchayats by Governments Circular No. MNS/41162/V dated 27-3-1963 and the employees were continued as work-charged employees by the District Panchayat and were transferred to and continued as such in the Panchayats. The respondents in the application thus contended that the four employees concerned were employees of the State of Gujarat, whose terms and. conditions of employment are subject to orders of the State Government and that they are paid out of the 100 per cent grant made by the State Government. The respondents in the applications further contended that the terms and conditions of service of the work-charged employees of the State Government are governed by the P. W. D. Manual and that the four employees, concerned are not entitled to the over-time wages claimed in the applications.

4. The Minimum Wages Authority found on the evidence adduced by the parties that the Tube-well Operators concerned were State Government servants and not the servants of the Panchayats, that Panchayats exercised supervisory control over them and that it was not controverted by the applicant, before him that the Tube-well Operators were employed by the State Government before 1-4-1963. Following the decision in G. L. Shukla v. State of Gujarat, (1967) 8 Guj LR 833, he found that Panchayat service is, like any other branch of service, service under the State, and he held that though employment in any District Panchayat or Taluka Panchayat is scheduled employment as