M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In these writ petitions the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 10.8.1994 and 19.9.1994 passed by respondent No. 3, the Additional Collector, Ranchi, being the appellate authority under the Minimum Wages Act, in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1/93, 4/93, 13/93, 15/93 and 16/93. By these orders the petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the claimed amount and on their failure to deposit the said amount the appeal shall not be admitted.

2. It appear that on the application filed by the Labour Superintendent and Labour Inspector under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (in short the said Act) complaining less payment of minimum wages by the petitioners who are the employers, proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Authority under the said Act. On being noticed to show-cause the petitioners appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer and took a defence that they were paying wages to their employees at the rates determined in a tripartite agreement reached between the authority, the Labour Superintendent and the members of the employee. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioners are not paying to the employees minimum wages fixed under the said Act and accordingly by order dated 7.5.1993 the petitioners were directed to make payment of the wages at the rate fixed under the said Act and also to pay compensation and the difference of the amount.

3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred appeals before the Additional Collector-cum-Appellate Authority under the said Act. The appellate authority, after hearing the parties, found that there was no dispute between the employers and the employees regarding the rate of minimum wages. The dispute was whether by an agreement the petitioners-employers are entitled not to make payment of the minimum wages fixed under the Act. However, before admitting the appeal the appellate authority, by the impugned orders, directed the employers- petitioners to deposit 50% of the amount of wages so determined by the Sub- Divisional Officer being the authority under the Act.

4. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order on various grounds. Learned counsel firstly submitted that subsection (5-A) of Section 20 as inserted by the Bihar Amendment is unconstitutional inasmuch as the State Legislature is not competent to made such amendment in the Act. Learned counsel then submitted that the claim petition filed by the Labour Superintendent under Section 20(2) was for less payment of wages and not for non-payment of wages and, therefore, such application was not maintainable under Section 20 of the said, Act. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 1335 and in the case Binod Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 (2) PLJR 313. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the appellate authority can not direct under Section 20(6) of the said Act for deposit of 50% of the amount so determined by the authority under the Act.

5. Before appreciating the submissions made by Mr. Das I would first like to refer the relevant provisions of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 confers power to the appropriate government to appoint any authority of the Central Government of the State Government to hear and decide a claim arising out of payment of less amount than the minimum rates of wages by the employers. Sub- section (2) of Section 20 provides that where an employee has any claim of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, he may apply to the authority for a direction in accordance with law under the provisions of that Act. Section 20 of the said Act reads as under :

"20. Claims.--(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmens Compensation or any o