The judgment established the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act to compute the shortfall in minimum wage and clarified the inclusion of daily batta in wages.

The writ petition is filed by the Management of a Transport Undertaking against the order passed by the first respondent (Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act) in M.W. Application No.61/1998. By the said order, the first respondent directed payment of difference in wages to the second respondent for the period from 1993 to 1997. For the earlier period, it gave liberty to the second respondent to file appropriate application with supporting documents.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 210. 1999. This Court also granted an interim order with a condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs.23,250/- with the first respondent. Subsequently, by an order dated 16. 2000, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited with the first respondent. Once again, when the matter came up on 11. 2001, this Court modified the earlier order and permitted the balance amount lying with the Commissioner to be withdrawn, since only 50% of the amount was initially directed to be deposited by order of this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ravi submitted that the order of the Commissioner is contrary to law and he has no jurisdiction to compute the said amount. He also submitted that for arriving at minimum wages, he has to confine himself to the term wages found under Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 which defines the term wages. In the said definition, there are several exceptions. Therefore, the first respondent, by not including the collection batta, in the payment made to the second respondent while calculating the minimum wage, was illegal. He also submitted that the collection batta ought to have been included for calculating the wages. Alternatively, he submitted that the second respondent Union had entered into a Settlements under Sections 18(1) as well as 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act where they have agreed to pay minimum wage in accordance with the Notification prescribed by the Government in relation to employment in Motor Transport Undertakings. He also submitted that where there was any lesser payment, the total amount paid to the petitioner will have to be calculated. Only if it is found that the total pay is less than the minimum wage, the question of calculating the difference in wages will arise.

4. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Hubli & others reported in (1970)1 SCR 51). He placed reliance upon the following passage. The purpose of Section 20(1) seems to be to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are complied with by the employer in making payments and, if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates, the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under Section 20(1). In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages, and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages, overtime or work on off-days is due to a workman or not, the appropriate remedy is provided in the Payment of Wages Act. If the payment is withheld beyond the time permitted by the Payment of Wages Act even on the ground that the amount claimed by the workman is not due, or if the amount claimed by the workman is not paid on the ground that deductions are to be made by the employer, the employee can seek his remedy by an application under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. In cases where Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act may not provide adequate remedy, the remedy can be sought either under Section 33-C of the Act or by raising an industrial dispute under the Act and having it decided under the various provisions of that Act. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant that Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act should be interpreted as intended to cover all claims in respect of minimum