S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. These 34 appeals are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 20th November, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 5685/2018 and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Ten of the appeals are by the employees and the remaining 23 by the management, viz. M/s Cyfuture India Private Limited (hereafter "CIPL").

Background facts

3. The employees were all working as Technical Support Executive (TSE) in the Internet Helpline Department of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) (Respondent No. 2 in the employees' appeals) for broad band services having helpline No. 1504. This was akin to call centre work. Their main work was to attend to complaints incidental to the telecommunication operations of MTNL. While the employees worked under the direct employment of CIPL, the arrangement was that MTNL would enter into fresh contracts with private parties for supply of workmen while the employees like the ten Appellants before this Court continued working for MTNL. CIPL is one such private company primarily engaged in the business of providing workmen.

4. It is not in dispute that 57% of the shares of MTNL are held by the Government of India. MTNL took out a tender dated 2nd May, 2016 for managing call centre services. CIPL successfully applied pursuant thereto and received a letter of intent-cum-Purchase Order dated 30th September, 2016 for managing the call centre in the MTNL's establishment. The terms of the tender stated inter-alia that

"The successful bidder shall comply with the provisions of all statutory provisions and the benefits admissible to the worker under various acts, schedules for minimum wages and other benefits payable as per relevant acts."

5. The case of the employees was that they were entitled to minimum wages in terms of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (MWA). Additionally in terms of Special Condition 16 appended to the contract, CIPL was liable to pay the workers minimum wages. The case of the employees was that they were in a "Scheduled employment" with the MTNL. Further, since MTNL was a company incorporated by the Central Government it is the Central Government which is the "appropriate Government" for the purposes of the MWA.

Question of law

6. The present appeals raise a short but interesting question of law: whether for the period between 19th January, 2017 and 3rd March, 2017, when the minimum wages payable under the MWA as fixed by the Central Government was higher than that fixed by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), the employees working for MTNL and under CIPL were entitled to the higher minimum wages For this purpose, reliance is placed by the employees on a Gazette Notification dated 19th January, 2017 issued by the Government of India to which the reference will be made thereafter.

Claim before the RLC

7. Twenty-Three employees of CIPL working at the call centre of MTNL approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (RLC) (Central), New Delhi with a petition under Section 20 (1) read with Section 20 (2) of the MWA, being MWA No. 61/2017 aggrieved by the denial of the excess minimum wages payable to them in terms of the rates fixed by the central government under the aforementioned Gazette Notification dated 19th January, 2017. During the course of the hearing of the said petition on 9th January, 2018 a statement was made on behalf of CIPL agreeing to pay the excess amount of the minimum wages. A final order was thereafter passed by the RLC on 17th April, 2018 directing CIPL to pay the differential amount along with compensation which was twice the amount payable.

CIPL's writ petitions

8. Assailing the order dated 17th April, 2018 of the RLC vis-a-vis the 23 employees who approached the RLC, CIPL filed 23 writ petitions in this Court. By an interim order dated 27th July 2018, the learned Single Judge stayed the order of the RLC subject to the amount payable in terms thereof being deposited by CIPL with the Reg