( 1 ) THIS petition arises from dismissal of a Recovery Application claiming payment of minimum wages. The petitioner and several other workmen of the respondent employer had filed Recovery Applications under sec. 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming payment of special allowance fixed by a notification (Ann. A to the petition) under the Minimum Wages Act for the scheduled industry of the respondent-employer. The petitioner claimed recovery of an amount of Ass. 2246. 20 ps. being the difference of amount between the wages actually paid and payable under the notification under Minimum Wages Act for the period from 1977 to 31-5-1978. There were several other recovery applications and it appears that a joint purshis had been given by the parties that whatever order is made in the present proceedings would be implemented in other recovery applications also.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent faintly raised a contention that the notification is applicable to tanneries and leather manufactory and the respondents establishment could not be covered under the same. The Labour Court has negatived that contention relying on the case of SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS WEST BENGAL V. SOON 1979 L. I. CASES 1963. The Labour Court held that the leather manufactory means the place where the leather work is carried on. It held that leather manufactory would include preparations of articles of leather and preparations of washers from leather. In leather factory leather cannot be manufactured (leather is a natural product) but products of leather can be manufactured and that would be leather manufactory. Hence the provisions of the notification are applicable to the respondent-establishment which manufactures leather washers. The Labour Court has rightly rejected this contention of the employer.

( 3 ) THE respondent-employer also contended that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are not applicable to piece-rated workmen as the piece rate used to be paid to the petitioner according to the agreement made with the workmen and since the notification does not fix the minimum piece rate the said notification is not applicable in the present case.

( 4 ) BY the notification (Ann. A to the petition) the minimum wages have been revised with effect from 1-8-1974 whereby the basic rates of wages and special allowance have been revised and those minimum rates are minimum time rates and no minimum piece rates have been fixed. The Labour Court held that since no minimum piece rates have been fixed by the notification (Ann. A) the said notification is not applicable in the present case and for that reliance is placed on sec. 17 of the Minimum Wages Act.

( 5 ) THE minimum rates of wages are fixed by the appropriate Government under sec. 3. Sec. 3 (2) enables the appropriate government to fix minimum time rate minimum piece rate guaranteed time rate over-time rate etc. Sec. 13 (3) (b) enables the appropriate government to fix minimum rates of wages for anyone or more of different wage periods such as by the hour by the date or by the month or by any such other larger wage period. Sec. 5 provides for the procedure and publication of notification fixing or revising minimum wages. Sec. 12 reads as follows:where in respect of any scheduled employment a notification under sec. 5 is in force the employer shall pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employ ment under him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by such notification for that class of employees in that employment without deductions except as may be authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The respondent-establishment is covered by the scheduled employment-tanneries and leather manufactory and a notification under sec. 5 is in force and minimum rates of wages have been fixed by such notification. The contention of the employer is that the notification has fixed minimum time rate of wages