1. The main question which calls for decision in this petition of Inder Singh and 43 other employees of Messrs. Podar Textile Mills, Amritsar (respondent No. 2), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether a disputed claim in pursuance of a notification under the Minimum Wages Act (11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Wages Act,) can or cannot be made under sub-section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, (14 of 1947) (hereafter called the Act), before a Labour Court established under the Act.

2. Respondent No. 2 is an industrial concern engaged in finishing textile goods. Minimum Wages of certain categories of the employees in such concerns had originally been fixed by a notification, dated August 4, 1964. That notification was subsequently superseded by notification, dated March 4, 1965, issued under Section 5 92) of the Wages Act, Disputes arose between the petitioners and respondent No.2 regarding the wages due to the petitioners for the period March 4, 1965, to June 30, 1965. The petitioners moved applications under S. 33-C (2) of the Act before Labour Court, Jullundur (respondent No. 1) for the computation of the wages to which they were entitled for the said period. According to the case of respondent No.2 (hereinafter called the employer), the petitioners had claimed wages of a higher category then the one to which they were entitled. In their application before the Labour Court, the petitioners gave details of the wages to which they claimed to be entitled, the rate at which they had actually been paid, and also the details of the difference between the two sets of awards. The applications of the petitioners were contested by the employer who raised various objections including the one relating to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try the applications in question. It appears to be appropriate to quote verbatim the relevant preliminary objection which gave rise to the dispute which now forms the subject-matter of this petition:-

"That the instant application cannot be entertained under Section 33C (2) of industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 33C contemplates only such benefits which have accrued under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act and a benefit not included or comprehended theirein does not fall within the ambit of Section 33C (2) of the Act."

It was further pleaded by the employer in its preliminary objections before the Labour Court that the proper forum for the recovery of the wages of the petitioners was the authority appointed under the Wages Act and that the other Courts were barred to entertain claims for the recovery of wages in question which can form the subject-matter of an application under Section 20 of the Wages Act. The case of the employer as contained in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections raised in its written statement filed before the Labour Court may also be appropriately set out in the words usedby the respondents itself:-

"That proper forum for the recovery of wages, if any, is the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act of 1948. Other Courts are barred to entertain claims for the recovery of wages which can be recovered by an application under Section 20 of the Act 11 of 1948. If a claim arises regarding payment of less wages otherwise than fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, the remedy lies under the Payment of Wages Act and the applicant was bound to move the said authority under the Act. The present application is an obvious circumvention of the statutory provisions of law and hence not maintainable."

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed two preliminary issues to the effect:-

(1) Whether the applications are not maintainable under section 33C (2) of the industrial disputes Act, 1947; and

(2) Whether the applications are barred by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act or Payment of Wages Act.

In the impugned award of the Labour Court, dated January 10, 1966, it