SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. : These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari or any other writ of the like nature seeking to quash an order dated 12-7-55 passed by the respondent Sri R. V. Subrahmaniam, Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, acting as an Authority under the Minimum Wages Act of 198. There is also a prayer that the Respondents, in­cluding the State of Assam, should be prevented by issue of appropriate directions from taking any steps to enforce the said order against the peti­tioner. (2) The applications arise out of proceedings instituted by the Labour Inspector, Cachar, on petitions filed by him under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act (Act XI of 1948 as amended up-to-date). In one petition, the Inspector alleged that the management of the Jalalnagar Tea Estate had paid its labourers at rates less than those prescribed under different Government noti­fications regarding fixation of Minimum Was. He accordingly prayed that the Authority should issue directions under Section 20 (3) of the said Act on the management to pay the difference between the wages payable under the law and what was actually paid. The total estimated amount originally claimed to be payable by the Inspector in respect of the Tea Estate in ques­tion was a sum of Rs. 5,084/67-; but this claim was subsequently revised and raised to a sum of Rs. 13,112/2/. There was a similar petition filed by the Ins­pector in respect of another Tea Estate known1 as the Madanpur Tea Estate where also a certain amount was claimed to be payable by the mana­gement to the labourers on the aforesaid grounds. It may be stated that the petitioner before us in both the cases is the All India Tea and Trading Company Limited which is the owner of the Tea Estates aforesaid, namely the Jalalnagar Tea Estate and the Madanpar Tea Estate in the dis­trict of Cachar. (3) The petitioner filed objections to those-petitions of the Labour Inspector. It denied all liability for the claims made therein. (3) The petitioner filed objections to those-petitions of the Labour Inspector. It denied all liability for the claims made therein. Substanti­ally its objection was that it had paid the requi­site amount of minimum wages payable to its labourers even in accordance with the Govern­ment notifications in question and in some periods even higher then what was fixed by the Govern­ment; and under the law there could be therefore no proceedings against it under Section 20 (2) of the Act nor could the Authority lawfully com­pel it to pay any excess amount of unauthorised wage to its labourers. (4) It appears that before the Labour Inspec­tor filed the petitions in question there was a long correspondence between the parties in which the Inspector pressed the liability of the petitioner to pay tile difference in wages, which he claimed the petitioner was liable to pay under the law whereas the said liability was strongly denied by the petitioner. I need not refer to the other ob­jections of the petitioner because they do not arise at present. The substantial point on which the present applications are founded is whether under the Minimum Wages Act and on the basis of the Government notifications issued from time to time the petitioner could be legally compelled to pay the labourers working in its Tea Estates any allowance known as "Conversion allowance" or allowance in lieu of supply of food-stuiis at con­cessional rates, as part of their minimum wages. (5) To understand the nature of the conten­tions involved in these applications some know­ledge of the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act (Act XI of 1948 as amended up-to-date) is necessary. The Act provides for fixation of minimum wages under certain employments specified in Parts I and II of its schedule which includes also employment in any plantation, that is to say, any estate which is maintained for the purpose of growing tea etc. 'Wages' in this Act has been defined to mean, inter alia, all remune­ration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done by him in course of such employ­ment. The definition of 'Wages' provides for certain exceptions to which I need not refer. The definition of 'Wages' provides for certain exceptions to which I need not refer. Under Section 3 of the Act the Appropriate Government, in the present case the State Government, is au­thorised to fix the minimum rates of wages pay­able to the employees in the Tea Estates and sec­tion 4 of the Act lays down what the minimum rates of wages should consist of. It is better to quote the section in full because much of the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties hang upon the interpretation of the language of this section. "Section 4.:- Minimum rate of wages. (1) Any minimum' rate of wages fixed or revised by the appropriate Government in respect of sche­duled employments under section 3 may consist of :- (i) A basic rate of wages and a special al­lowance at a rate to be adjusted, at such intervals and in such manner as the appropriate Govern­ment may direct, to accord as nearly as practi­cable with variation in the cost of living index number applicable to such workers (hereinafter referred) to as the "cost of living allowance;" or (ii) a basic rate of wages with or without the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of es­sential commodities at concession rates, where so authorised; or (iii) an all-inclusive rate allowing for the basic rate, the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions, if any. (2) The cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rates shall be computed by the competent authority at such in­tervals and in accordance with such directions as may be specified or given by the appropriate Gov­ernment." The next section which is material is section 11 which says that minimum wages payable under this Act shall be paid in cash. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this section are also important, and run as follows: Clause (2) "Where it has been the custom to pay wages wholly CT partly in kind, the appropriate Government being of the opinion that it is necessary in the circumstances of the case may by notification in the official Gazette, authorise the payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in kind. Clause (3) If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that provision should be made for the supply of essential commodities at concession rates, the appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, autho­rise the provision of such supplies at concession rates. Cl. (4) The cash value of wages in kind and of con­cessions in respect of supplies of essential commo­dities at concession rates authorised under sub. sections (2) and (3) shall be estimated in the prescribed manner." Section 12 enjoins that where in respect of any scheduled employment a notification has been made the employer shall pay to every employee* engaged in a scheduled employment under him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by such notification; and under section 19 of the Act the Government is empower­ed to appoint by notification in the official Ga­zette such persons as it thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purpose of this Act. The officer so ap­pointed is empowered to examine any Register Or record of wages to see whether the objects of the Act are carried out. Where it is found that an employee is paid less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act, the Inspector as also certain other per­sons specified in section 20, may apply to the Authority under sub-section (2) of section 20 to direct payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with such compensation as the Authority may think fit, no exceeding ten times the amount of such excess It is clear from the above provisions that it i. open to the State Government to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees in the tea estates from time to time and revise those rates when necessary. It is also obligatory on the part of the employers under the law to pay the minimum rates c wages to their employees, fixed under Government notification; and in case of their failure to do so it is the duty of the Inspector appointed under the law to move the appropriate Authority for a direction that the difference of wages which R mains unpaid by the employer should be paid the employees. (6) I shall now refer to the notification which in the present instance the Government c Assam issued from time to time in exercise c their powers under the Act and on the basis which the Inspector laid the claims. The fir notification is notification No. GLR 352/51/1 dated 11-3-52. Under this notification the Government of Assam fixed in terms of section 4 (1) (i) the rates of minimum wages payable per day to an unskilled labourer working in the tea estates in the district of Cachar. The minimum wages so fixed consisted of the basic wages and the dearness allowance payable per day which are as follows: Adult male Adult female Children Basic wages 0-10-0 0- 9-0 0-6-0 Dearness Allowance 0- 5-0 0- 5-0 0-2-6 Total 0-15-0 0-14-0 0-8-6 In paragraph 2 of the notification the Govern­ment inter alia further declared thus :- "These rates are exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workman in respect of supplies of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and other amenities which will continue unaffected." The notification came into effect from the 30th March 1952 and a ccpy thereof is appendix "A" to the petitions. (7) Later, on the 14th of February 1953 the State Government published another notification No. GLR 350/52/196 dated the 9th February 1953 in partial modification of the rates of the mini­mum wages fixed in terms of Section 4 (1) (i) of the said Act under the earlier notification. By this notification the Government directed inter alia as follows : "(a) There will be no issue of foodstuffs at concessional prices and no cash compensation as such in lieu thereof will be payable to the work­ers. (b) With a view to mitigate the hardship of the labourers due to suspension of food concession, as a temporary measure, the existing dearness allowances will be raised temporarily until fur­ther revision to the following extent: (i) For all Cachar Tea Estates by anna 1 per adult and 6 pies per minor for each working day." A copy of this notification is annexure "B" to the petitions. (8) Then there was a further notification No. GLR 350/52 dated the 12th October 1953. (8) Then there was a further notification No. GLR 350/52 dated the 12th October 1953. Under this notification the State Government again modified partially the rates of minimum wages fixed earlier as follows :- "(1) The con­version allowance should be fixed at 3 annas for an adult and 11/2 annas for minor with effect from 1st October 1953." This is annexure "C" Jo the petitions. (9) The above was followed by still another notification No. GLR 65/54/31 dated 18th March 1954 published in the local Gazette on 23rd of March 1954 wherein the State Government pur­ported to revise with immediate effect the mini­mum wages fixed under the previous notifica­tions. The rates as fixed under this last notifi­cation in so far as they are applicable to the gardens owned by the petitioner in the district of Cachar are as follows : Adult male Adult female Children Basic wages 0-10-0 0- 9-0 0-6-0 Conversion allowance 0- 5-0 0- 5-0 0-2-6 Dearness allowance 0- 5-0 0- 5-0 0-2-6 Total Re. 1- 4-0 1- 3-0 0-11-0 A copy of this notification is annexure "D" to the petitions. (10) It would thus be seen that the first noti­fication operated from the 30th March 1952 to the 13th of February 1953 (annexure "A"); the second from the 14th February 1953 to 30th Sep­tember 1953 (annexure "B"), and the third from 1st of October 1953 to 23rd of March 1954 (annexure "C"). I need not dilate on the last notification because there is no serious contention about the rates of wages payable under this noti­fication for the present. The petitioner in fact admits that it has been paying wages to its la­bourers at the rates mentioned thereunder; though it insists that the point that it is not liable for payment of any conversion allowance, applies as much to the last notification as to the earlier ones. (11) The claim of the petitioner is that at all material times until 29th of March 1952 the petitioner used to remunerate its unskilled la­bourers by payment of basic wage and dearness allowance at the following rates per day :- Adult male Adult female Children Basic wages 0- 7-0 0- 6-0 0-4-0 Dearness allowance 0-9-6 0-9-0 0-4-6 Total Re. (11) The claim of the petitioner is that at all material times until 29th of March 1952 the petitioner used to remunerate its unskilled la­bourers by payment of basic wage and dearness allowance at the following rates per day :- Adult male Adult female Children Basic wages 0- 7-0 0- 6-0 0-4-0 Dearness allowance 0-9-6 0-9-0 0-4-6 Total Re. 1-0-6 0-15-0 0-8-6 It, however, never supplied any foodstuffs to its labourers at concessional or subsidised rates, though it provided certain amenities: such as, free housing, medical assistance, use of rent free agricultural land, Puja and Fagua bonus, mater­nity allowance etc. As an annexure to the peti­tion there is a statement showing the rates of wages paid by the petitioner at all material times from 1st of January 1948 onwards. It sub­mits that during the period to which the first notification, dated 11-3-52 (annexure "A") applies, it paid the minimum wages in excess of those fixed by the notification. In the second period which is governed by the notification, dated 9th February 1953 (anne­xure "B"), it contends that it did not pay the additional amount which was payable to the la­bourers thereunder, because the amount notified was on account of suspension of supply of food­stuffs at concession rates; and there being no such concessions in its Tea Estates, the notifica­tion in question did not affect the petitioner. As to tire third period from 1st October 1953 to 23rd of March 1954 governed by the notification, dated 12th October 1953 (annexure "C") the con­tention of the petitioner is that this notification also had no application to its Tea Estates be­cause no question of "conversion allowance" could arise in its case. The term "conversion allow­ance" has not been explained in the notification itself but the arguments have proceeded on the assumption that it refers to cash value of con­cessions in respect of supplies of food-stuffs or other essential commodities. (12) The learned Deputy Commissioner act­ing as an Authority under the Act rejected the above contentions of the petitioner and held in a reasoned and well-considered judgment that the petitioner was liable for those payments. (12) The learned Deputy Commissioner act­ing as an Authority under the Act rejected the above contentions of the petitioner and held in a reasoned and well-considered judgment that the petitioner was liable for those payments. He observes that "notwithstanding the fact that the management did not supply the foodstuffs at concessional rates in kind, its liability to do so did not cease." He finds that this garden along with other gardens was bound to supply food­stuffs at concessional rates to its labourers and whether it actually did so or not when the sup­ply of foodstuffs at concessional rates was sub­sequently suspended and an extra dearness allow­ance or conversion allowance was introduced, it was bound to pay the extra dearness allowance or conversion allowance at the rate so fixed. He, therefore, whittled down the plea advan­ced on behalf of the management that it never supplied foodstuffs at concessional rates, and it could not be expects:: to pay the conversion, allowance in lieu thereof, as it had nothing to convert; and he characterised the argument as purely academic. Another line of reasoning which appears to have found favour with the learned Deputy Commissioner is that the higher rate of clearness allowance paid by the petitioner was in substance a sort of conversion allowance because the petitioner's gardens were not supply­ing foodstuffs at concessional rates. The learned Deputy Commissioner observes that the said payment was purely in the nature of clearness allowance voluntarily paid by the management to alleviate the hardship of the la­bourers, because in his opinion the management realised that the basic wage and the dearness allowance paid were by themselves not adequate remuneration for the labour of the workers and some further concession was therefore. necessary. 311 this argument is indeed very plausible and attractive; but I regret to have to say that I can­not see my way to adopt them generally in this case in view of the terms of the Government notifications themselves. I shall presently indicate my reasons for dis­agreement when I come to examine the Govern­ment notifications. It is, however, important to remember that there is no finding by the Autho­rity concerned that as a matter of fact foodstuffs were being supplied by the petitioner in its gardens at concessional rates. I shall presently indicate my reasons for dis­agreement when I come to examine the Govern­ment notifications. It is, however, important to remember that there is no finding by the Autho­rity concerned that as a matter of fact foodstuffs were being supplied by the petitioner in its gardens at concessional rates. This finding is mate­rial inasmuch as in dealing with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, we have to proceed upon some admitted basic facts. (13) I shall first take up the notification annexure "A" which covers the period from 30th March 1952 to I3th February 1953. As I have said it purported to fix under Section 4 (1) (i) of the Act the minimum rates of wages specified in the schedule annexed to the notification. The schedule very clearly indicates that the minimum wages fixed for an adult made, an adult female and a child consisted only of basic wages and dearness allowance. In the case of Caehar District annas -710/-basis wage plus annas -75/- dearness allowance, fn other words annas -715/- minimum wage for an adult male; annas -79/- basic wage plus annas -75/- dearness allowance or annas -714/- mini­mum wage for an adult female; and annas -76/-basic wage plus annas -72/6 dearness allowance, or annas -78/6 minimum wage for working child­ren. The table does not make any reference to any other allowance payable as a part of the minimum wage fixed under the notification in question. It is purely minimum wages fixed in terms of section 4 (1) (i), which refers only to basic rate of wages and special allowance at a rate to be adjusted pro rata according to cost of living index or in other words dearness allowance. The minimum rates of wages so fixed therefore ex­cluded any other allowance that may have been payable to the employees by the management. On behalf of the respondent-State the learned Advocate General has laid a great deal of stress, as was done by the Deputy Commissioner, on paragraph 2 of the notification which states that the rates are exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workers in respect of supplies of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and other ame­nities which will continue unaffected. On behalf of the respondent-State the learned Advocate General has laid a great deal of stress, as was done by the Deputy Commissioner, on paragraph 2 of the notification which states that the rates are exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workers in respect of supplies of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and other ame­nities which will continue unaffected. It is argued that these concessions or ameni­ties should therefore be regarded as part of the minimum wages fixed and should be deemed to have been included in the minimum wages pay­able by the management to the employees- The petitioner, however, urges that in the first place on the finding itself there was nothing to show that the petitioner's gardens supplied any food­stuffs to labourers at concessional rates and se­condly even if it were found to the contrary, the terms of the notification itself show that the minimum wages fixed thereunder were exclusive of such concessions. In other words, it was not included in the 'minimum wages' and cannot be so enforced as such on the strength of the notification. The excess amount which the petitioner paid to its labourers during the period could not be there­fore regarded as a part of the minimum, wages and the decision of the learned Deputy Commis­sioner to the contrary was plainly against the terms of the notification itself. There is un­doubtedly much strength in this contention. The Deputy Commissioner has nowhere found that the petitioner's gardens did supply essential com­modities or foodstuffs to its employees at conces­sional rates. Whether it was or was not morally bound to do so under some agreement is a different ques­tion. The point with which we are at present concerned/is what was the 'minimum wage' pay­able which could be enforced against the peti­tioner oil the strength of Government notifica­tion. On\ the language of the notification itself the 'minimum wage' has been clearly indicated to consist of the 'basic wage' plus the 'dearness allowance' mentioned therein and nothing else. This is apparent from a reading of both para­graphs I and the Schedule to the .notification. On\ the language of the notification itself the 'minimum wage' has been clearly indicated to consist of the 'basic wage' plus the 'dearness allowance' mentioned therein and nothing else. This is apparent from a reading of both para­graphs I and the Schedule to the .notification. Section 4 of the Act apparently makes a dis­tinction between 'dearness allowance' as such and "the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession Tales, where so authorised." The latter may be taken into consideration in fixing the minimum wage, but this is specifically contemplated by clause (ii) of section 4 (r) and not by clause (i) of the section. It may also be taken into ac­count in fixing an "all-inclusive rate" under clause (iii) of the section. But these clauses find no reference in the notification aforesaid. If the Government desired to include the cash value of the concessions in respect of sup­ply of essential commodities at concession rates, where so authorised, it could do so under clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 4 (1) of the Act; but obviously it has not done so. It has specifically confined the minimum wage to clause (i) of Section 4 (1). The distinction is quite significant and leaves no room for speculation as to what the 'minimum wage' is in the face of the notifi­cation. Therefore, no other liability can be en­forced against the petitioner 011 the assumption that it was a part of the 'minimum wage' pay-' able to the employees. It may be that the concessions enjoyed by the workers in respect of supply of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and other ame­nities which were intended to continue unaffect­ed by paragraph 2 of the notification could be enforced in some other manner; but reading the notification as it is, it is quite clear that those concessions even if enjoyed by the employees of the Gardens in question could not be enforced as 'minimum wage'. Therefore the Authority in the present case had no jurisdiction to make any order for payment of any sum of money by the petitioner to its employees in the two gardens aforesaid on the strength of this notifica­tion in excess of the amount specifically fixed in the schedule which was payable as 'minimum wage' to the employees. Therefore the Authority in the present case had no jurisdiction to make any order for payment of any sum of money by the petitioner to its employees in the two gardens aforesaid on the strength of this notifica­tion in excess of the amount specifically fixed in the schedule which was payable as 'minimum wage' to the employees. The claim of the peti­tioner therefore must succeed in respect of this period as the direction given by the Authority to the contrary is without jurisdiction and unwar­ranted by law. (14) In regard to the next period from 14th February 1953 to 30th September 1953, covered by the notification dated 9th February 1953 (annexure "B"), I see no reason why on the terms of the notification itself, the direction given by the Authority should not be upheld. It is quite clear from the notification that no cash compen­sation was payable on account of any direction for non-issue of foodstuffs at concessional rates. If it were so, the petitioner of course could con­tend that in view of the finding that no such supplies were being made by it, it was not liable for any cash payment. But here the notification raised the 'dearness allowance' until further revi­sion by one anna per adult and six pies per minor for each working day in all the Tea Estates of Cachar district. Therefore, it was a part of the 'dearness-allowance' payable under the notification and not by way of any concessions on account of non-supply of foodstuffs at concessional rates. The Government were entitled to revise the 'dearness allowance' under section 4^(1) of the Act which they did and to the extent that the petitioner did not comply with the directions given in this notification, he could be compelled to pay the employees concerned at the rates indi­cated therein. The petitioner, therefore, has not very seriously pressed his applications in regard to this period. I should have also stated that in regard to the first period the petitioner having paid in excess of the minimum wage indicated in the first notification, he could not obviously again claim any refund of the amount so paid and the matter therefore rests where it is. I should have also stated that in regard to the first period the petitioner having paid in excess of the minimum wage indicated in the first notification, he could not obviously again claim any refund of the amount so paid and the matter therefore rests where it is. (15) In respect of the third period from 1st of October 1953 to 23rd of March 1954 governed by annexure "C" the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the rates indi­cated therein were clearly on account of 'conver­sion allowance', and as such not payable by the petitioner. As I said earlier the term 'conver­sion allowance' has not been explained in the notification hut it has been taken for granted both before the Deputy Commissioner as also in this Court that this allowance was in lieu of supply of foodstuffs at concessional rates. In view of the finding, we feel that there is a good deal of substance in the argument of the petitioner. The learned Advocate General, however, submits that it was open to the Govern­ment under section 4 (1) (ii) .of the Act to take this factor into consideration in fixing the mini­mum wage which it has done and therefore the "allowance so payable was under the terms of section 4 (1) (ii), payable as minimum wage, and could be enforced under section 20 (3) of the Act. Mr. Ghose on the contrary submits that on the authority of section 4 (1) (ii) the 'minimum wage' may consist of a basic rate of wage with or without the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of sup­plies of essential commodities at concession rates, "where so authorised". The learned Counsel urges that the words "where so authorised" are significant and have reference to Section 11 of the Act which contemplates the authorisation of such concessions. There is nothing to indicate that in the pre­sent instance there was any such authorisation as contemplated by section 11 (3) and that being so, the Government .had no jurisdiction to in­clude this allowance in fixing the minimum wage. According to Mr. Ghose the words "where so authorised" in section 4 cannot refer to any other kind of authorisation under any other lay as the learned Advocate General contends, but must be confined to the authority contemplated by section 11 of the Act. According to Mr. Ghose the words "where so authorised" in section 4 cannot refer to any other kind of authorisation under any other lay as the learned Advocate General contends, but must be confined to the authority contemplated by section 11 of the Act. There is no other provision of the Act under which there could be any such authorisation and in the absence of a notification to the effect prior to the fixation of the minimum wage, it would not be assumed that Government had any power to take that factor into account. The question, however, still arises whether although there may have been no separate notification under Section 11 (3) of the Act, the Act does not preclude the possibility of adopting recourse to both the provisions simultaneously. In other words, it may well be argued that we should construe the notification in the pre­sent case as one both under Section 11 as also under Section 4 (1) (ii) of the enactment. These contentions deserve serious consideration, prima facie I am inclined to think that it would have been more appropriate for Government to take recourse to section 11 (3) of the Act before taking into account the value of the concessions in res­pect of supplies of essential commodities in fixing minimum rate of wages under Section 4. We do not, however, feel called upon to finally decide these questions because the peti­tioner's learned Counsel has agreed as a matter of grace to pay his employees according to the rates indicated in annexure "C". He realises that he has been already paying to his employees in accordance with the rates stated in the last notification dated 23rd March 1953 (annexure "D") and therefore he cannot seriously resile from the position that he should pay to his employees also in accordance with the rates fixed in the notification dated 12th of October 1953 (annexure "C"). We think that the petitioner has adopted the right course in making that concession to its employees. After all, it is a matter which ulti­mately is to its benefit because it serves to keep its employees contented. The petitioner appre­ciates the position that the employees themselves have made no grievance of it and are content with the payments which it has already made to them and in any case, they deserve consideration at its hands. After all, it is a matter which ulti­mately is to its benefit because it serves to keep its employees contented. The petitioner appre­ciates the position that the employees themselves have made no grievance of it and are content with the payments which it has already made to them and in any case, they deserve consideration at its hands. (15) In view of these circumstances, we allow the applications in so far as they relate to the first period under notification No. GLB 352/i 51/.56 dated 11th March 1952 (annexure "A"). We hold that the directions given by the Autho­rity in respect of this period are without juris­diction and must be quashed. In regard to the other periods the applications of the petitioner fail and are dismissed. We do not make -any order for costs of these applications. The rule is made absolute only to the extent indicated above. The amount determined to be payable may be paid in six equal monthly instalments. (17) H. DEKA, J. :-I agree. M.K.S. Order accordingly.