MEHROTRA J. : This is an application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India on behalf of 4 persons, who are the employees of the opposite party - Dewan Tea Estate, against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar in Minimum Wages Case No. 14/54. The petitioner No. 1 - Prafulla Ch. Chakravarty was appointed Driver of Motor Lorry in the Estate in 1949 and he was working as such since then. The petitioner No. 2 - Labanya Kumar Nag was appointed as Motor Mechanic in the Estate in 1948 & is working as the Operator in the Water Supply Plant of the Estate and is drawing Rs. 387- as basic wages and Rs. 14/107- as Clearness allowance per month. The petitioner No. 3 - Naresh Ch. Das was appoint­ed as Moulder in the Estate in 1947 and is work­ing as such since then. He was drawing Rs. 38/- as basic wages and Rs. 14/10/- as dearness allowance per month. Makhan Lal Sarkar, petitioner No. 4 was appoint­ed as Carpenter in the Estate in 1946 and is working as such since then. He is drawing Rs. 43/- as basic wages and Rs. 16/4/- as dearness allowance. (2) Under S. 5 (1) (a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a Committee was appointed by the Government of Assam to make certain en­quiries and advise the Government in fixing minimum rates of wages of the employees in the employment specified in Part I of the Schedule to the Act. The Committee in due course sub­mitted its report and the Government after con­sidering the advice given by the Committee, by its Notification dated 11th March 1952 publish­ed in the Assam Gazette, fixed .the minimum rates of wages and dearness allowances for the employees in all Tea Plantations in Assam. Under the aforesaid Notification, according to the petitioners, 'Artisans' in the Tea Plan­tations are entitled to get Rs. 50/- as basic wages and Rs. 30/- as dearness allowances per month, besides other concessions enjoyed by them in respect of the supply of food-stuff and other essential commodities and other amenities with effect from 30th March, 1952. Under the aforesaid Notification, according to the petitioners, 'Artisans' in the Tea Plan­tations are entitled to get Rs. 50/- as basic wages and Rs. 30/- as dearness allowances per month, besides other concessions enjoyed by them in respect of the supply of food-stuff and other essential commodities and other amenities with effect from 30th March, 1952. (3) Though the aforesaid Notification came into force with effect from 30th March, 1952, the opposite party failed to pay the basic wages in accordance with the amount fixed under the noti­fication and arbitrarily made reduction in the wages. Other concessions, which the petitioners were entitled were also denied to them. The k petitioners made repeated demands in respect of their wages and dearness allowances taut were not Paid. Through the Indian Tea Employees' Union, Silchar, which is a registered Trade Union and which was duly authorised in wilting by the peti­tioners to make an application on their behalf under S. 20 of the Act, the petitioners applied for a direction to Pay them the amount payable under the Notification. The petitioners duly filed an application through the said Union claiming the excess amount which they were entitled un­der the aforesaid notification and also compen­sation under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. The amount claimed by the petitioners was Rs. 2752/- payable to them as excess and Rs. 27520/-, being ten times of the said amount as compensation payable under sub-s. (3) of S. 20 of the Act. The application was contested by the opposite party, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners were not 'artisans' and they were not entitled to the wages at the minimum rates fixed for artisans under the notification dated 11th March, 1952, till they passed the trade tests held by the Committee 'appointed by the Gov­ernment. The Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, heard the application and by his order dated 3rd August, 1955, rejected the application, holding that it was premature and the petitioners were not entitled to claim the minimum wages and the dearness allowances fixed by the Government under the notification dated 11th March, 1952, unless they were either admitted as artisans by the oppo­site party or they passed trade tests held by the Committee, set up for the purpose. The order of the Deputy Commissioner has been assailed on various grounds. by the peti­tioners. The order of the Deputy Commissioner has been assailed on various grounds. by the peti­tioners. The 1st ground is that the Government having fixed the minimum wages and dearness allowances for the artisans by their Notification dated 11th March, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in not giving a direction to the opposite party to pay the minimum wages according to the rates fixed under the said Notification. Secondly that the petitioners having been appointed as artisans in the tea estate by the opposite party and they having been actually doing work as artisans, the Deputy Commis­sioner could not reject the claim of the peti­tioners on the ground that it is premature unless the petitioners passed the test in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government. Thirdly, the validity of the Notifications issued by the State Government subsequent to the Notification of the 11th March, 1952 has been challenged. (4) In order to appreciate the points, it is necessary to refer to some of the Notifications issued by the State Government. On the 11th March, 1952, the State Government issued a Notification in the exercise of its powers con­ferred by S 3 read with sub-s. (2) of S 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and fixed the mini­mum wages and dearness allowances of the vari­ous classes of employees in the Tea Plantation. The Notification was to come into force with effect from 30th March, 1952 and the rates of wages fixed under the Notification were exclusive of other concessions enjoyed by the staff in respect of the other amenities which were to con­tinue unaffected. The Schedule attached to the Notification has divided the workers into two classes - unskilled labour and the staff and arti­sans. On the 12th May, 1952, another Notification was issued by the State Government in modifica­tion of the earlier Notification dated 11th March, 1952 by which the word 'artisan' has been defin­ed as meaning fitters, Engine drivers, Masons, Electricians, Blacksmith, Carpenters, Mechanics, Motor drivers possessing a licence and some know­ledge of the machines of the vehicles and capa­ble to attend to ordinary repairs, Turner, Welder, Moulder, Foreman and such other persons pos­sessing some mechanical knowledge and engaged in work involving some responsibility who may be considered by the Govt. fit to be included. fit to be included. By a Notification dated 24th September, 1952, the Governor of Assam appointed the Principal of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales Techni­cal School, Jorhat, to be the authority to con­duct necessary trade tests to decide doubtful cases arising out of the definition of the term 'artisan' as defined in the earlier Notification dated 12th May 1952. (5) By another Notification issued on 12th December, 1953, a Committee was constituted for the purpose of laying down qualifications of artisans and providing the machinery, regional or otherwise, to undertake the trade tests. (6) It appears that a Committee was appoints ed to consider the whole matter of providing machinery for conducting the trade tests and the qualifications of artisans and the Committee re; commended that Regional Committees be ap­pointed to conduct the necessary trade tests, for artisans for the purpose of Minimum Wages Act, within their respective zones. In view of the aforesaid notifications issued by the Government from time to time, it was held by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioners were not entitled to the minimum wages fixed under the Notification of the 12th March, 1952 for artisans unless they underwent the necessary trade tests before the Regional Committee. (7) Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. - (Act No. 11 of 1948) provides that the appropriate Government shall, in the manner hereinafter provided.- (a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed- (i) in the employment specified in Part I of the Schedule at the commencement of this Act, before 31st of December, 1954; (ii) in an employment specified in Part n of the Schedule at the commencement of this Act, before the 31st day of December, 1954. Sub-section (iii) of S. 3 (a) provides that diffe­rent minimum rates of wages may be fixed for- (i) different schedule employment; (ii) different classes of work in the same scheduled employment; (iii) adults, adolescents, children and appren­tices; (iv) different localities. Sub-section (iii) of S. 3 (a) provides that diffe­rent minimum rates of wages may be fixed for- (i) different schedule employment; (ii) different classes of work in the same scheduled employment; (iii) adults, adolescents, children and appren­tices; (iv) different localities. (8) Section 5 of the Act lays down that for fixation of minimum wages in respect of the Scheduled employment- "the appropriate Government shall either- (a) appoint a committee to hold enquiries and advise it in this behalf with such sub-com­mittees for different localities as it may deem expedient to appoint to assist such committee, or (b) by notification in the official Gazette, : publish its proposals for the information of per­sons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of the notification, on which the proposals will 'be taken into consideration." "(2) After considering the advice of the com­mittee appointed under Cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) or as the case may be all representations received by it before the date specified in the notification under Cl. (b) of that sub-section, the appropriate Government shall, by notification in the official 'Gazette,-' fix the minimum rates of wages in res­pect of each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue." (9) In the present case, the Government Issued the notification dated 11th March, 1952 3Qxing the minimum wages after considering the advice of the Committee, appointed under Cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 5. it is admitted that the em­ployment in the Tea Estates is in respect of a •Scheduled Employment. The State Government has been given power under S. 5 to fix the mini­mum wages in respect of the scheduled employ­ment. In fixing such wages, it is also open to the •State Government to fix different minimum rates of wages for different scheduled employments as well as different classes of workers under the same scheduled employment. But having fixed the Minimum rates of wages, there is nothing in the Act which authorises the State Government to provide by notification, the procedure for decid­ing which of the employees falls within which particular category of the employment whose rates of the minimum wages have been fixed un­der the aforesaid notification. But having fixed the Minimum rates of wages, there is nothing in the Act which authorises the State Government to provide by notification, the procedure for decid­ing which of the employees falls within which particular category of the employment whose rates of the minimum wages have been fixed un­der the aforesaid notification. The notification of the 11th March, 1992 was issued under S. 5 of the Act, the minimum wages for artisans in Tea Estates have been fixed under the aforesaid notification. No power has been given to the State Government under S. 5 to declare which of the individual employees fulfils ;' the requirements of the notification and comes within the word 'artisan' under the said notifica­tion. The power of fixing the minimum wages "under S. 5 can only be exercised in respect of a class of employment. It gives no authority to the State Government to determine the claims of the individual •employees and to decide whether they are entitled to the benefit of the notification or not. Section 20 of the Act provides that- "the appropriate Government may, by noti­fication in the official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court -or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the Autho­rity to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than "the minimum rates of wages to employees em­ployed pr paid in that area. (2) Where an employee is paid less than the minimum rates of wages fixed for his class of workers under this Act, the employee himself, or any legal practi­tioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any person acting with the permission of the Autho­rity appointed under sub-s. 1, may apply to such. Authority for a direction under sub-section (3)." Sub-section (3) authorises the authority to hear the applicant and the employer and after such inquiry direct the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages pay­able to him exceed the amount actually paid, to­gether with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess and the autho­rity may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the appli­cation. Sub-section (4) also gives the power to the authority to hear and if satisfied that the appli­cation was malicious or vexatious, to direct that a penalty not exceeding Rs. 507- be paid by the employee to the employer. (10) On reading S. 20, it is clear that an authority for the determination of the claims of the employees is to be constituted. It is for this authority, appointed by the Government to de­cide whether the petitioner is or is not entitled to any payment under the Notification which has fixed the minimum wages. This power neces­sarily implies power to determine whether a parti­cular employee falls within the category of arti­sans as defined under the notification. That power cannot be taken away by the I State Government. It was contended by the council for the opposite party that all the notifica­tions issued by the Government should be con­sidered together and they should all be regarded as notifications issued under S. 5 of the Act. The learned counsel further contended that the State Government having been given the power to fix the minimum wages and to revise it, it is open to the Government to define the word 'artisan' and also to provide for the machinery to test the efficiency of the employees. I have considered the provisions of the Act and in my opinion there is nothing in the Act which gives power to the State Government to lay down the procedure for deciding which of the employees will fall within the category of the artisans and the notifications issued by the Government providing for machinery to hold trade tests have no statutory force and cannot be regarded as notifications under S. 5 of the Act. They are only in the nature of adminis­trative directions issued by the Government and they are not binding on the Deputy Commis­sioner. It was for the Deputy Commissioner himself to have considered the claim of the petitioners on the materials before him and to decide if the petitioners can or cannot be regarded as the arti­sans within the meaning of the notification of the 11th March, 1952 and not to reject their claims as premature. It was urged by the learn­ed counsel for the opposite party that the fact whether the particular employee possesses the necessary technical skill so as to be called an artisan, can only be determined by persons hav­ing technical knowledge and it cannot be possi­ble for the Deputy Commissioner to decide the question himself. The Regional Committees were thus in a bet­ter position to decide whether a particular em­ployee having regard to his technical knowledge and skill can or cannot be regarded as an arti­san. There is no substance in this contention. The Deputy Commissioner has been given the power to decide the claim of an employee and the question whether a person is entitled to claim certain amount as minimum wages fixed under the notification, issued by the State Gov­ernment under S 5 is a matter which is within his competence and S. 20 does not contemplate that any other machinery should be provided for determination of the individual's right to claim the minimum wages fixed under the notification. The Deputy Commissioner should have decid­ed on the materials before him whether the petitioners are artisans within the meaning of the notification of 11th March, 1952 and he should not have rejected the petition on the ground that it was premature and left the determination of the question as to whether the petitioners were artisans to some future date, after they had un­dergone the necessary trade tests before some Committee. (11) In the result, we allow this petition, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and send the case back to him to decide the claims of the petitioners on the materials before him. (12) SARJOO PROSAD C. J. : I agree. V.S.B. Petition allowed.