- (1.) HEARD learned Coun ­sel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification No. 4190/XXXVI -3 -21 (M.W.) -83 dated Lucknow December 1, 1984 issued by the State of U.P. Labour Department. In exercise of the powers under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Sec ­tion 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and alter considering objections and sug ­gestion received in respect of proposals published with Government Notification No. 4491/XXXVI - 3/21 (M.W) -83 dated January 19, 1984, the Governor fixed the minimum rates of wages for employees employed in Private Coaching Classes, Private Schools including Nursery Schools and Private Technical Institutions in Uttar Pradesh with effect from the date of publi ­cation of notification in the Gazette Le. on 1 -12 -84. The minimum rates of wages pay -able to adult employees were as follows - SI. Category of Workers Minimum No. rates of (A) 1. Fourth class Peon, Cleaner 299.00 and other unskilled workers. 2. Rickshaw Chalak /Daftary 325.00 3. But/Truck/Driver 364.00 4. ( clerk/Typist 425.00 5. Head clerk 490.00 (B) 1. Untrained teacher (High 325.00 School/Inter) 2. Trained "teacher and Junior 385.00 Basic Teacher (High School an Inter). 3. Untrained Teacher 425.00 (B.A./B.Com./B. Sc.) 4. Trained' teacher 475.00 (B,A./B. Com./B, Sc./B. Ed./ L.T. and "technical' instructor. 5. Untrained Teacher 545.00 (M.A./ M. Com./M. Sc.) 6. Trained teacher 545.00 (M.A./M.Com./M. Sc./B. Ed. The aforesaid rates are applicable with certain terms and conditions men ­tioned in the said notification. The petitioners Canossa Hospital Society, St. Francis Convent, Civil Lines. Pratapgarh, and Manager, St. Francis Convent School, Civil Liens, Near Bus Stand. Pratapgarh, have challenged the abovcnoted notifica ­tion on the ground that no notice/proposal as contemplated under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act was ever issued and the petitioners were not afforded an op ­portunity to file their objections to the proposed notification. The other ground of attack is that normal working hours as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are illegible hours per day ; while in In ­stitution in question employees work only 4 1/2 hours per day, therefore, provisions of the Act will have no application in the present case. It has also been urged that employee/teachers of the petitioners In ­stitution did not come within the defini ­tion of workman.
(3.) WE have considered the submis ­sions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and also perused the record.;