1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour I who is the authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Through the said order dated 30.6.1999, the second respondent has observed that the petitioner herein is engaged in public motor transport activities and therefore liable to pay the minimum wages to its employees as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act with 10 times amount of such wage being the compensation to its workers. The said order of the second respondent is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the business or activities carried out by the petitioner is not coming under the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, more particularly, within the definition and meaning of "Public Motor Transport."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

(i). The petitioner acts as an agent in Chennai to outstation Cargo carriers who do not have a booking or delivery office at Chennai. The petitioner is having delivery counter and godown and acts as an agent for several companies and cargo carriers. They will send goods meant for consignees in Chennai to the petitioner's godown along with lorry way bill and the same will be received and stored in the petitioner 's godown. The consignee will present his copy of the lorry way bill and after verifying the same with that of the way bill received by the petitioner along with the goods, the petitioner will collect the delivery/ freight charges and issue a receipt. Thereafter the consignee will produce the receipt in the godown and take delivery of the goods. If the consignor books the goods on door delivery basis then the petitioner will arrange for delivery of goods at consignee's place through Tyre cart, Head load, cycle rickshaw or tempo and the charges for such door delivery would be debited to the concerned transporter's account . The petitioner does not own any motor vehicle . The petitioner does not book any cargo for any onward transmission to any destination nor the petitioner has any booking office outside Chennai for booking cargo. Thus, the only service rendered by the petitioner is to act as an agent to the transport carriers and provide storage space for receiving the goods meant for consignees in Chennai. Thus, the activities carried out by the petitioner will not fall under the definition of Public Motor Transport.

(ii). The petitioner's godown and its office are commercial establishments within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. It is not a motor transport undertaking and thus is not governed by the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The petitioner complies with the requirement under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The petitioner pays its employees wages not less than the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Tamil Nadu for employment in Shops and Commercial Establishments. On 12.12.1997 the first respondent visited the petitioner's establishment and stated that five employees working in the office were paid the wages less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government for employment in public motor transport. Though the petitioner disputed such liability , the first respondent moved the second respondent under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, by filing an application seeking for a direction to pay the minimum wages to the petitioner's employees. The second respondent after hearing the petitioner and also after considering the rival pleadings and submissions concluded that the employees working under the petitioner are engaged in a work connected with Public Motor Transport and consequently the work carried on by the petitioner would fall within the scope of public transport. Accordingly, a direction was issued to pay the minimum wages to its employees with 10 times of wages as compensation.

3. Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as f