( 1 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner is permitted file separate writ petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution challenging common orders in group of Recovery Applications Nos. 320 to 471 of 1980 under Sec. 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Special Civil Application No. 4256 of 1989 will be treated to be writ petition against the order in Recovery Application No. 320 of 1980. Separate writ petitions would be filed which may be treated as compa- nion writ petitions challenging common order in Recovery Applications Nos. 321 of 1980 to 471 of 1980 meaning thereby 151 additional companion petitions will be filed. They will bear necessary Court-fees. They will be filed on only one page showing names of the parties. Filing of rest of the pages in the petition and annexures dispensed with as they arise from the common award which was in consolidated proceedings. All these 152 petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) RULE in each of these petitions. We have heard the learned Advocate for the workmen Mrs. Shah and Mr. Shah for Mr. Dave for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. These petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of these petitions:1 Minimum wage notification is not applicable to the facts of the present case and hence Sec. 33 (C) (2) applications as granted by the Labour Court in favour of the workmen are not sustainable. 2 Minimum Wage Act is a self-contained Code and therefore remedy of these workmen was to go under the Minimum Wages Act and they could not have filed Sec. 33 (C) (2) applications. 3. There is a patent error in calculating the amounts payable to the concerned workmen and therefore the demands exceed the amounts claimed in the applications and hence the orders under challenge should not be enforced against the petitioner.

( 4 ) BEFORE we proceed to consider these contentions it is necessary to notice certain introductory facts leading to this petitions. Concerned 152 workmen are Adivasis residing in remote parts of Bharuch District. A dam called Pigu dam was being constructed across river Narmada and for that purpose services of these workmen were requisi- tioned by the Irrigation Department of the State of Gujarat which had appointed the petitioner as a contractor for carrying out the constru- ction of the said dam. The petitioner employed the respondents- workmen for its work for construction of the dam. The petitioner paid these workmen wages at the rate of Rs. 2-00 or Rs. 2-50 or Rs. 3 per day. It was contended on behalf of the workmen through their Union that this was sheer exploitation and that minimum wages of Rs. 6. 00 per day should have been paid to them by the petitioner. They therefore requested the Labour Court in proceeding under Sec 33 of the I. D. Act to compute monetary benefits available to the workmen and direct the petitioner to pay the same to them. These applications were consolidated as common questions of law and fact arose. The Labour Court has noted that though the petitioner filed written objections nobody remained present on their behalf to contest these proceedings. However objections raised by the petitioner have been considered and by a common award the Labour Court has granted to the respondent-workmen difference in minimum wages for the period from November 197 7/04/1980. It has to be noted that the claim of the concerned respondents was from May 197 7/04/1980. But according to the Labour Court respondents were able to make out their case for 8rant of special allowance at the rate of Rs. 6. 00 per day only from November 197 7/04/1980. Accordingly all 152 recovery applications wore allowed by the Labour Court Vadodara. It is interesting to note that this common order is dated 8-10-1984. It appears that despite this order the concerned workmen were not paid under the award and years rolled by nor did the petitioner challenge this