DEKA, J.: This is an application under S. 115 of the Coda of Civil Procedure and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, purported to have been passed under S. 20 of the Minimum! Wages Act (Act XI of 1948). (2) This matter comes for the second time to this Court after an order of remand passed by a Divi­sion Bench of this Court - the decision being since reported in Prafulla Ch. Chakravarty v. Manager De­wan Tea Estate, AIR 1958 Assam 12. The judgment contains a full statement of facts, including the points' argued. In that case (M. W. Case No. 14 of 1954), the learned Deputy Commissioner who was authorised to act as the appointed Authority under S. 20 of the) Minimum! Wages Act (which we shall hereafter call the Act), refused to pass any order on the application of the workmen who claimed the minimum wages, on the ground that their claim was premature in view of the fact that they did not submit to certain trade tests proposed to be held by the employer or the re­gional committee concerned, as suggested by a com­mittee formed under Government notification dated 12-12-53, for the purpose of laying down the quali­fications of artisans and providing the machinery, re­gional or otherwise, to undertake the trade tests. The employees questioned the validity of the notice under "which such a committee was proposed by the State Government, and that contention was accepted by this Court. (3) The short facts that are necessary for this case to be stated are that an application for fixing the minimum wages and consequent reliefs was made on behalf of four reasons - (1) Prafulla Chandra Chakravarty, (2) Labanya Kumar Nag, (3) Naresh Chandra Das, and (4) Makhan Lal Sarkar - who' were employees of the Dewan Tea Estate. Their save was that Prafufla Chandra Chakravarty was appointed as a driver of Motor Lorry and Tractor in the estate from 1949, Labanya Kumar Nag was appointed as a Motor Mechanic in the estate from J 948 and was. Their save was that Prafufla Chandra Chakravarty was appointed as a driver of Motor Lorry and Tractor in the estate from 1949, Labanya Kumar Nag was appointed as a Motor Mechanic in the estate from J 948 and was. at the time of the application working as an Operator in the water-supply plant of the tea estate; Naresh Chandra Das was appointed as a Moulder in the es­tate from 1947, and Makhan Lal Sarkar was appoint­ed as a Carpenter in the estate from 1946, - and they were all working on a pay scale lower than what was prescribed under the Government notification of 11-3-52 fixing the minimum wages. This notification was duly published in the Ga­zette and was purported to have been issued by the State Government, by virtue of S. 3 read with S. 5 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, as amended. The notification laid down that an 'artisan' employed in the tea plantations of Assam should get a minimum wage of Rs. 50/- a month along with 50 per cent dearness allowance (with a minimum of Rs. 30/-), apart from the ration concessions and other existing amenities that he was enjoying at the time. All the four petitioners claim to be 'artisans' and they claim pay as laid down under this notification, which was binding on all tea garden authorities in Assam. (4) The garden authorities resisted the claim on the ground that the petitioners were not 'artisans' and, even if artisans by class or trade, they had not passed nor taken the trade tests that were proposed to be held by a body of competent persons as provid­ed under the Government notification of 12-12-1953, which came more or less as a supplement to the Gov­ernment notification of 11-3-1952 prescribing the mi­nimum wages. It was on the latter objection that the application of the petitioners was thrown out as premature by the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, and it was against this order that the peti­tioners came to this Court and filed Civil Revision No. 132 of 1955, which ended in an order of re­mand. (5) The earlier Revision case was decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Prosad, C. J. and my learned brother Mehrotra, J.. who deli­vered the judgment. (5) The earlier Revision case was decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Prosad, C. J. and my learned brother Mehrotra, J.. who deli­vered the judgment. Their Lordships were pleased to hold in that connection that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, the prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, rejecting the application as premature, was not a proper one, whereas he ought to have decided as to whether the petitioners came within the category of 'artisans' as claimed by them. It was further observed in that connection that the Deputy Commissioner was under no obligation to accept the Government notification of 12-5-52 which sought to interpret what the State Government meant by the word 'artisan' contained in the earlier notifi­cation of 11-3-52, or their latter notification of 12-12-1953 suggesting the formation of a committee for lay­ing down the qualifications of artisans and for provi­ding the machinery to undertake the trade tests. It was stated in the notification of 12-5-52 that " 'arti­san' will mean fitters, engine drivers, masons, electri­cians, blacksmiths, carpenters, mechanics, motor-dri­vers possessing a licence and some knowledge of the mechanics of the vehicles and capable of attending to ordinary repairs; turners, welders, moulders, fore­men, and shall include such other persons possessing some degree of mechanical skill and engaged in work involving some responsibility, who may be considered by Government fit to be included." (6) Their Lordships were of the opinion that there was nothing in the Act which empowered the State Government to lay down the procedure for de­ciding which of the employees would fall within the category of 'artisans', and what amount of efficiency would justify their retaining that position. They held further that the notifications issued by the Gov­ernment providing for machinery to hold trade tests had no statutory force and could not be regarded as notifications under S. 5 of the Act, they being only of the nature of Executive instructions issued by the Government, at best. Their Lordships accordingly held that the notifi­cation of 12-5-52 laving down the interpretation of the word 'artisan', as appeared appropriate to the State Government, was not binding, and left the mat­ter open to the Deputy Commissioner to decide whom he considered to be an artisan for the purpose of getting the minimum wages as prescribed in the Government notification of 11-3-52. The concluding portion of the judgment runs as follows : "The Deputy Commissioner should have decided, on the materials before him, whether the petitioners are artisans within the meaning of the notification of 11-3-1952, 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." (7) After the matter went back to the Deputy Commissioner for ascertaining as to whether the peti­tioners could be considered to be artisans for the purpose of the Government notification prescribing the minimum wages, it was held by the learned Ad­ditional Deputy Commissioner that Prafulla Chandra Chakravarty (the motor-driver) and Labanya Kumai Nag (the operator of the water-supply plant) could not be considered to be 'artisans' for the purposes of the notification, dated 11-3-52. under Ss. 3 and 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, - having referred to the dictionary meaning of the word. He, considered that, according to the dictionary meaning of the word 'artisan', petitioners Makhan Lal Sarkar and Naresh Chandra Das, who were respec­tively a carpenter and a moulder, were entitled to be classed as 'artisans'. He, however, accepted the ob­jection raised on behalf of the employers to the effect that these two persons did not appear in or pass the trade tests proposed to be held by the experts as to their efficiency and, therefore, they could not ask for the minimum wages prescribed for an 'artisan'. He expressed himself as follows : "Before giving them artisans' wages, the manage­ment should at least satisfy themselves that they know the minimum work in that line or they have some proficiency in the work. I am not satisfied that these two workers possess sufficient qualifications in their line." In the light of the above-mentioned observation, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner held that Makhanlal Sarkar and Naresh Chandra Das were not competent to be classed as artisans for the purpose of drawing the minimum wages prescribed under the Government notification of 11-3-52 referred to above, and he dismissed the application on behalf of all the four employees. It led to an apparent incongruity in the sense that the learned Additional Deputy Com­missioner accepted the terms of the Government noti­fication of 12-12-53 while rejecting those of the noti­fication of 12-5-52. It led to an apparent incongruity in the sense that the learned Additional Deputy Com­missioner accepted the terms of the Government noti­fication of 12-12-53 while rejecting those of the noti­fication of 12-5-52. in respect of both of which the State Government's position was identical. (8) Mr. Dam appearing for the petitioners, has argued before us that the finding of the learned Ad­ditional Deputy Commissioner was wrong, and that all skilled labourers or workmen, including carpenters or blacksmiths, motor-drivers or mechanics must be classed either as 'artisans' or as members of the staff. The petitioners not being members of the staff, should have been considered as 'artisans'. This argument is based on the assumption that the notification of 11-3-1952 covers all classes of employees working in a tea garden or in a scheduled employment, and there be­ing specific mention about unskilled labour on daily basis alone the other workers, who are working on a monthly pay basis or are skilled labourers or work­men, must, for the purpose of minimum wages, be considered to be 'artisans', in a sense. We do not find much logic in this argument. We must confine ourselves to the Government notification prescribing the minimum wages, and we cannot ex­tend its operation to the categories of labourers not named or mentioned therein. The State Government has evidently named only those categories of emplo­yees or workmen in the tea estates for whom it sought to prescribe the minimum wages. Accordingly, the prescribed authority is entitled to give the benefit of minimum wages to those persons only, and to none else. Therefore, the scope of enquiry was strictly limi­ted to the question as to whether die petitioners were 'artisans' as contemplated either under the Minimum Wages Act or as understood from the general mean­ing of the word 'artisan'. The Act nowhere defined what an 'artisan' is, and, therefore, the learned Addi­tional Deputy Commissioner was acting correctly in trying to ascertain who an artisan was, from the dic­tionary meaning of the word, since there was no other evidence for a finding, and it was left to him to come to a finding on this point by this Court while re­manding the case. Therefore, the learned Additional Deputy Com­missioner was acting within his jurisdiction in try­ing to find out who, amongst the petitioners, were artisans & were entitled to get the minimum wages. Mr. Therefore, the learned Additional Deputy Com­missioner was acting within his jurisdiction in try­ing to find out who, amongst the petitioners, were artisans & were entitled to get the minimum wages. Mr. Dam has further argued that there is no provision for a test or any obligation on an artisan to show any standard of efficiency to earn the minimum wages. He also urged for the acceptance of the meaning of the word 'artisan' as explained in the Government no­tification of 12-5-52 - and in that case, he cannot escape the handicap set down in the notification of 12-12-53.- (9) Mr. Chaudhuri, on the other hand, appearing for the employer opposite party, urges that it was not within the competence of the Additional Deputy Commissioner to enquire or decide who was an 'artisan' or a member of the staff, - his jurisdiction being confined strictly to find out as to whether the mini­mum wages prescribed were paid or not. He could not enter into any disputed question as to the nature of the employment. He, in this connection, drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in "A. V. D'Costa v. B. C. Patel (S) AIR 1955 SC 412 . That was a case under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (1936). Apart from the Acts being different and the relevant sections differently worded, the Authority in that case was required to decide not between the wage that a workman was getting at the time and the wage prescribed for him, but the poten­tial wages for him were required to be ascertained?, namely, whether he was entitled to be upgraded by the Railway in which the petitioner worked. The Supreme Court decided that the Authority could not) go behind the facts as they stood and investigate as to what would be the potential wages of the work­man. Mr. Chaudhuri further referred to a case deci­ded by this Court which was governed by the Assam Adhiars Protection Act. The facts of that case also bear little analogy to those of this case. The other case relied on by Mr Chaudhuri is reported in Anthony Sabastin Almeda v. R. M. Taylor, AIR 1956 Bom 737 which also has no application. In this case, the fact of the petitioners, as employees, drawing my less than that of an 'artisan' prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act notification, is not denied. The other case relied on by Mr Chaudhuri is reported in Anthony Sabastin Almeda v. R. M. Taylor, AIR 1956 Bom 737 which also has no application. In this case, the fact of the petitioners, as employees, drawing my less than that of an 'artisan' prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act notification, is not denied. The only point for investigation was their status, namely, whether they are artisans or not, without which there could be no finding as to whether the above notification of 11-3-1952 applies to them or not. Further, this point was decided in a way in the earlier decision of this Court, and the point seems to be no longer open to be agitated afresh. Their Lordships opined: "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 de­nned under the notification." It might be that it was not categorically challenged (that the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide whe­ther a particular workman was an artisan or not, but even if this question were raised, we are inclined to think that there was not much substance in that con­tention. We have not been shown any direct autho­rity on the point and we are of opinion that the view expressed in the earlier judgment is correct, namely, that the Authority is competent to enquire and find out as to whether a particular individual is an 'arti­san' or not, so as to be entitled to draw the minimum wages fixed. (10) The next point raised by Mr. Choudhuri is that the finding of the learned Additional Deputy Com­missioner is conclusive on the point as to whether the petitioners are artisans or not, and his finding be­ing to the effect that none of the petitioners is an artisan, no matter how faulty the conclusion may be on a point of law, this Court has no reason to inter­fere, and the jurisdiction of the Court under S. 115 of the C. P. Code will not justify any interference. We have paid due regard to this contention and we hold that the finding in respect of Prafulla Chandra Chakravarty and Labanya Kumar Nag may be con­sidered to be conclusive and beyond interference, but the finding as to the other two persons, namely, Naresh Chandra Das and Makhan Lal Sarkar, cannot, in our opinion, be said to be legally arrived at. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner considered them to have fallen in the category of 'artisans', from the meaning of the word as given in the English Dictionary, but held that they had not enough efficiency to be considered as such. The learn­ed Additional Deputy Commissioner seems to think that it is not enough for a workman to belong to a particular class of artisans unless he shows certain dexterity in the trade which would justify his claim to that job, or unless he proves sufficient efficiency to please his employers. That does not seem to be the purpose of the Act or of the notification prescribing minimum wages. All that is necessary for the Authority to ascertain is - whether the workmen were 'artisans* at the time they claimed the excess pay or the minimum wages; and here the finding is to the effect that these two persons belonged to such a class, but. in the opinion of the Authority, did not deserve the difference in pay or the excess amount as claimed, because of not passing the test as would satisfy the employer. We think this is not the requirement of the law or of the noti­fication for minimum wages, which did not lay down any standard of efficiency either for the members of the staff or the 'artisans'. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner acted in excess of his jurisdiction in trying to come to the relevant finding on an assumption that one would be an 'artisan' only if he satisfied the condi­tions laid down by the employer, or on passing a trade test held by them or at their instance. There is no standard prescribed as to what would be the amount of efficiency that an employer would require, and if this contention is given effect to, the purpose of the notification under the Minimum Wages Act may be neutralised, if not negatived. There is no standard prescribed as to what would be the amount of efficiency that an employer would require, and if this contention is given effect to, the purpose of the notification under the Minimum Wages Act may be neutralised, if not negatived. We, therefore, refuse to accept this contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party in its entirety, and hold that the finding of the learn-;ed Additional Deputy Commissioner is good only in respect of the Motor Driver (Prafulla Chandra Cha­kravarty) and the water plant Mechanic (Labanya Kumar Nag), but is liable to be set aside in regard to the other two persons, namely, Naresh Chandra Das the Moulder, and Makhan Lal Sarkar the Carpenter, as the finding was arrived at on consideration of something that was extraneous to the issue. We can remedy this error apparent on the face of the record in exercise of our power under Art. 227 of the Con­stitution. (11) We direct that the matter should go back for ascertaining the minimum wages in regard to these two persons - Naresh Chandra Das and Ma­khan Lal Sarkar. The other points, including the point of limitation, might be gone into by the Autho­rity, but the only point that has been decided is - Naresh Chandra Das and Makhan Lai Sarkar should be considered as artisans coming within the scope of the notification of 11-3-52. (12) The petition succeeds in part. The parties will bear their own costs. (13) MEHROTRA J. : I agree. HC/R.G.D. Petition partly allowed.