ORDER Dixit, J. - 1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 157 and 158 of 1963. 2. These are three petitions under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Factory Manager, the Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing and Weaving Company Ltd" Gwalior, for quashing orders passed by the Legal Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (here in after referred to as the Act), directing the petitioner to pay to the first respondent in each case wages at the rate of Rs. 80 per month for the period he worked as a warper, less the amount already paid to him. 3. The three respondents, Rambharose Ganesh Dutt and Rameshchandra are employed as creel boys in the Rayon Factory. They made applications under section 15 of the Act before the Legal Authority complaining that the management of the factory had not paid to them the wages of a warper for the period during which they officiated and worked as warpers and that for this period they were entitled to get wages at the rate of Rs. 105 per month in accordance with an agreement dated 31st July 1958 arrived at between the Mazdoor Congress, a' representative union of the workers of the factory and the Factory Manager. They, therefore, claimed that the management of the factory be directed to pay them the wages of a warper for the period they officiated and worked as warpers. 4. These applications were opposed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that according to the practice prevailing in the factory a creel boy officiating as a warper was not paid wages payable to a permanent warper but that he was paid the wages of a creel boy plus half of the difference between the wages of a creel boy and the wages of a warper. 5. The legal Authority was disposed to accept the statement of Shri Virendra Kumar, Labour Welfare Officer of the Rayon Factory, in support of the practice pleaded by the management. 5. The legal Authority was disposed to accept the statement of Shri Virendra Kumar, Labour Welfare Officer of the Rayon Factory, in support of the practice pleaded by the management. It, however, was 'not prepared to accept the Labour Welfare Officer's statement that when on 31st July, 1958 an agreement was concluded between the Mazdoor Congress and the Factory Manager with regard to fixation of wages of creel boys and warpers it was understood by the parties that a creel boy officiating a warper would be paid according to the practice referred to above The Authority observed that if these was such an agreement as regards this practice, it would have been specifically mentioned in the agreement dated 31st July 1958 itself and that the petitioner Factory Manager had not pleaded specifically that practice. The Authority then went on to say that when the work done by a permanent warper and a creel boy officiating as a warper was of the same nature, it was unreasonable to make any distinction between the wages payable to them and that even a creel boy officiating as a warper was entitled to be paid the wages of a permanent warper. On this view and finding that in accordance with the agreement dated 31st July 1958 a permanent warper was entitled to get the minimum wage of Rs. 80 per month, the Authority made the three orders impugned in these petitions. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that these petitions must be allowed. The authority was clearly in error in thinking that the Manager of the factory had not pleaded the practice in regard to the wages payable to a creel boy officiating as a warper. Paragraph 10 of the reply filed by the management before legal authority in each case clearly mentions that the practice in the factory was to pay a creel boy officiating as a warper his wages as a creel boy plus half of the difference between the wages of a creel boy and the wages of a warper. The authority said in so many words that it saw no reason to disbelieve the statement given by the Labour Welfare Officer in support of the practice. The authority said in so many words that it saw no reason to disbelieve the statement given by the Labour Welfare Officer in support of the practice. If the statement of the Labour Welfare Officer is accepted, as the Legal Authority itself was inclined to accept, then it is plain that the understanding between the parties was that a creel boy officiating as a warper would get the wages according to the practice. A practice cannot develop unless it is accepted by all the parties concerned. If this mode of payment to a creel boy officiating as a warper was not acceptable to the creel boy then they would have raised a dispute about it and the practice deposed to by the Labour Welfare Officer would not have grown The authority, was, therefore, in error in holding that even though there was such a practice in the factory, that did not indicate that there was an understanding between the parties with regard to it when the agreement dated 31st July 1958 was concluded inasmuch as the agreement did not refer to such a practice. It is easy to see that the omission in the agreement about the practice if it was prevalent at the time when the agreement was concluded, is due to the fact that there was no dispute with regard to it between the parties. If on the other hand, the practice began after the agreement was concluded, then clearly no reference to it could be made in the agreement. The necessary implication of that practice is that it was accepted by the creel boys when they did not at any time raise any dispute about it. In our judgment, on the accepted by the authority of the Labour Welfare Officer's statement that there was a practice in the factory to pay in a creel boy officiating as a warper his wages as a creel boy plus half of the difference between the wages of a creel boy and the wages or a warper, the conclusion that this mode of payment was accepted by creel boys is inescapable The authority was in error in thinking that the agreement dated 31st July 1958 governed the payment of wag s to a creel boy officiating as a warper and that creel boy so officiating were entitled to the wages of a warper fixed by the agreement. When the agreement did not cover, the payment of wages to a creel boy officiating as a warper, the Legal Authority could not, on the grounds of reasonableness or propriety or considerations of similar work being done by a permanent warper and a creel boy officiating as a warper, determine that the wages payable to a creel boy officiating as a warper should be the wages which a permanent warper was entitled to get. The authority has jurisdiction to decide what actually the terms of contract between the parties are, that is to say, to determine the actual wages but it has no jurisdiction to determine the question of potential wages or the wages that ought to be paid to an employee. (see A.V.D. Costa Vs. B.C. Patel, AIR 1955 SC 42) 7. If then, as we think, on the statement of the Labour Welfare Officer accepted by the Legal Authority the wages payable to a creel boy officiating as a warper are his wages as a creel boy plus half of the difference between the wages of a creed boy and those of a permanent warper, the direction made by the Legal Authority against the petitioner for the payment of wages to the respondent No.1 in each case cannot be maintained. It was not disputed before us that if the wages payable to a creel boy officiating as a warper are according to the practice deposed to by the Labour Welfare Officer, then there was no deduction by the management in the wages payable and paid to each of the respondents according to the practice referred to above. 8. For these reasons, these petitions are allowed and the direction, dated 28th February 1963, made by the Legal Authority in each is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs in all the petition. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner in all the petitions.