Judgment :- 1. A petition was filed by eleven workmen of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent, the Authority appointed for their area under S.20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The application was signed by two of them - The petitioner and one Kunju Pillai - as allowed by the note in Form No. VI of the Travancore-Cochin Minimum Wages Rules, 1951: "When the application is by a group of employees the thumb impression or signatures of two of the applicants need be put to the application and a full list of applicants should be attached to application". The 1st respondent held that a court fee of rupee one for each of the applicants is required and the only contention urged before us is that the said decision is incorrect. 2. R.31 (omitting the provisions attached thereto) of the Travancore-Cochin Minimum Wages Rules, 1951, reads as follows: "The court fee payable in respect of proceedings under S.19 shall be - (i) for every application to summon a witness - One rupee in respect of each witness; (ii) for every application made by or on behalf of an individual - One rupee". The reference to S.19 must be due to some printer's error. The relevant section is not S.19 but S.20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 3. R.31(ii) seems to indicate separate applications by or on behalf of every individual aggrieved while Form No. VI does contemplate not only separate applications by or on behalf of each individual aggrieved but also joint applications by or on behalf of more than one individual. The question raised by the petitioner is: what is the court fee prescribed in respect of an application of the latter class, that is, a joint application by or on behalf of more than one individual; is it one rupee for every such joint application or is it one rupee for each of the applicants by or on whose behalf such application is made? 4. We consider it unnecessary to decide this question in this petition. Kunju Pillai, the other signatory, withdrew his claim during the trial before the 1st respondent and in view of that the 1st respondent considered the court fee of one rupee paid on the petition as sufficient to enable the petitioner to obtain an adjudication of his contentions. He said: "Of the eleven workers shown as applicants all except Nos. Kunju Pillai, the other signatory, withdrew his claim during the trial before the 1st respondent and in view of that the 1st respondent considered the court fee of one rupee paid on the petition as sufficient to enable the petitioner to obtain an adjudication of his contentions. He said: "Of the eleven workers shown as applicants all except Nos. 3, 6, 9, and 11 have already withdrawn their claims. Among those withdrawn include applicant No. 8 also who is one of the signatories to the application. Of the applicants Nos. 3, 6, 9 and 11 who pressed the claim, applicant No. 11, K. Kuttan Pillai (the petitioner before us), the only signatory to the petition and the court fee of one rupee paid applies to his petition. I, therefore, proceed to consider the claims of applicant No. 11 only" "in the result the claim of the 11th petitioner fails. I accordingly dismiss application of the 11th petitioner on merits and the other applicants Nos. 3, 6 and 9 on the technical ground already stated though on merits the result might be the same as that of the 11th petitioner". 5. In view of what is stated above it is not possible to say that Kuttan Pillai, the petitioner before us, has been aggrieved by the decision of the 1st respondent on the question of court fee to the effect that the court fee payable is not rupee one per application but rupee one per applicant. None of the other three petitioners who pressed their claims before the 1st respondent, namely, Nos. 3, 6 and 9 have chosen to question the correctness of the ruling or are parties to this petition. 6. In the light of what is stated above the petition has to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, though in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. 7. There is no doubt that R.31(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Minimum Wages Rules, 1951, can with advantage, be redrafted and its meaning placed beyond controversy. The Registrar is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Advocate-General for information. Dismissed.