Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -Union aggrieved against the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('the Act'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act has been disposed of by holding that the dispute raised was cognizable by the Labour Court and the petitioner was free to seek relief under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act').
(2.) THE petitioner -Union filed a group application under Section 21(i) of the Act (Annex.2) inter -alia claiming that the applicants whose name appeared in the schedule attached to the application were employed from 12.7.1994 to 19.5.1995 as sorter (category) in Soapstone Mines, Gewariya, Tehsil Kotdi, District Bhilwara of the respondent and were engaged in sorting in Soapstone, which is scheduled employment within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act and the applicants were paid wages at less than the minimum rate of the wages fixed for the category of employment under the Act by Rs. 34.00, 35.22 and 37.68 per day for the period from 12.7.1994 to 19.5.1995 and based on the calculation, the value of relief was estimated as Rs. 1,60,311.90 P. and it was prayed that direction be issued under Section 20(3) of the Act for payment of difference between the wages payable under the Act and the wages actually paid. The application was opposed by the respondents employer by filing reply Annex. -3, disputing the averments made in the application. It was indicated that the applicants whose name appeared in the schedule annexed to the application were in the employment as 'Mazdoor' during the period 12.7.1994 to 19.5.1995 as un -skilled employees at the Soapstone Mines of the respondents and it was wrong to say or suggest that they were employed as sorters; their employment falls in the category No. 6 of classification of un -skilled workers 'Mazdoor (M/F)' as notified by Government of India vide notification dated 12.7.1994 and they were being paid accordingly. It was also contended that as the category of employment was Mazdoor and not Sorter, the Mazdoor falls in the category of un -skilled worker and as such, they are not entitled to the amount claimed by them in the statement annexed. It was prayed that the application be dismissed.
(3.) BASED on the submissions made by the parties, evidence was also led before the prescribed authority, wherein the affidavits were filed and the deponents were cross -examined.;