ORDER M.U. Issac, J. 1. The petitioner is the same in the above three cases; and the short question that arises for decision is whether she is liable to pay court fees as provided by rule 21 (2) of the Kerala Payment of Wages (General) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on the appeals filed by her under section 17, of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Rule 21 (2) reads: - "21 Court fees. (1) x x x (2) The fee payable in respect of an appeal preferred before the Court of Small Causes or District Court under section 17 of the Act shall be at the same rate of ad valorem fees as chargeable in respect of a memorandum of appeal under article 1 of schedule I to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) calculated on the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal except that when an appeal is preferred by a person making an application under section 15, the fee payable shall, subject to the provisions of section 17-A, be calculated on the amount directed to be paid by the Appellate Court under section 17 of the Act:" (The provisos are omitted) 2. The petitioner is the manager of an industrial establishment. Some of the workers filed applications under section 15 of the Act for orders against the petitioner for payment of delayed wages before the Labour Court, Quilon. The applications were resisted by the petitioner, stating that the claims related to periods when her predecessor was in management of the establishment and that she was not, therefore, liable for the amounts claimed. The objections were dismissed by the Labour Court, and orders were passed directing her to pay specific amounts to the applicants. The petitioner filed appeals from the above orders under section 17 (1) of the Act before the District Judge, Kozhikode, paying the fixed court fee as provided in article 3 of schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Court Fees Act). The learned District Judge held that court fees were payable as provided in rule 21 (2) of the Rules, and returned the appeals to the petitioner for re-submission after payment of the correct court fees. The learned District Judge held that court fees were payable as provided in rule 21 (2) of the Rules, and returned the appeals to the petitioner for re-submission after payment of the correct court fees. These revision petitions are from the aforesaid decision of the District Judge. 3. There is no dispute that, if rule 21 (2) of the Rules is valid, ad valorem fees, at the rate chargeable in respect, of a memorandum of appeal under article 1 of schedule I of the Court Fees Act have to be paid on the petitioner's appeals. But the contention is that the court fee shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act; and that rule 21 (2) of the Rules to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, is invalid. According to the petitioner's learned counsel the fee would not fall under article 1 of schedule I of the Court Fees Act, as the memorandum of appeal mentioned therein relates only to an appeal from a decree and not to an appeal from an order, and that the case, therefore falls under article 3 of schedule II, of the Court Fees Act. I am unable to accede to this contention; and no authority has been placed before me in support of it. I do not find anything in article 1 of schedule I to restrict the meaning of the term "memorandum of appeal" occurring therein, in the manner contended for by the learned counsel. That article applies to all appeals presented to any court in which the subject matter in dispute is capable of a valuation. Article 3 of schedule II is a residuary provision; and it applies only in the absence of any specific provision in the Court Fees Act. 4. I am also unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that rule 21 (2) of the Rules is invalid, on account of inconsistency with any provision of the Court Fees Act. The Payment of Wages Act is a law made by Parliament. Section 26 (1) empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the procedure to be followed by the authorities and courts referred to in sections 15 and 17, while sub-section (2) empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Section 26 (1) empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the procedure to be followed by the authorities and courts referred to in sections 15 and 17, while sub-section (2) empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (3) enumerates the particular matters on which rules may be made; and this sub-section with clause (k) thereof reads:” "26 (3). In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules made under subsection (2) may” x x x x (k) prescribe the amount of court fees payable in respect of any proceedings under this Act;" x x x x There is no dispute that the above provision is invalid on any account; or that rule 21 (2) is ultra vires of the power conferred by Parliament on the State Government under the above provision. In this view of the matter, no question of an inconsistency with any provision of the Court Fees Act arises. The Payment of Wages Act is a law on a special subject; and rule 21 (2) of the Rules contains a provision made by the State Government in exercise of a specific rule-making power conferred on them by the Act. That provision necessarily prevails over any provision contained in the Court Fees Act. It follows that the petitioner has to pay court fee as provided in rule 21 (2) of the Rules. These revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.