CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE five petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, are for quashing a common order of the Labour Court on applications made under s. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred) to as the Act ). Those applications were presented by the petitioners herein (hereinafter referred to as the workmen) who were hotel workers, claiming that they were entitled to receive from respondent-2 herein, their employer (hereinafter referred to as the Management) certain amounts towards wages due to them. ( 2 ) UNDER the notification dt. 1-6-1967 issued under S. 3 (1) (a) and s. 5 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Government of Mysore had fixed minimum rates of wages for different classes of employment like cooks, Assistant Cooks, Servers and Helpers in hotel and eating houses, with effect from 1-7-1967. The petitioners in WPs. Nos. 961, 1024 and 1243 of 1971 were admittedly paid by the Management wages of Servers; but they have claimed that they performed duties of Assistant Cooks and hence were entitled to the minimum rate of wages fixed under the notification for Assistant cook. Similarly the petitioners in WPs. Nos. 776 and 978 of 1971 were admittedly paid by the Management wages of Helpers; but they have claimed that they performed duties of Suppliers and were hence entitled to the minimum rate of wage fixed by the aforesaid notification for supplier. ( 3 ) ALL their applications were made in printed application forms by filling certain particulars therein. . The application made by the petitioner in WP. No. 978 of 1971 (which is marked as Annexure M3 therein) may be taken as a specimen application. We have reproduced below the relevant portions in the annexure to that application:"3. The applicant is employed under the Opponent in the category mentioned below: 4. Supplier. As per the minimum wages Notification No. S. O. 1038, dated Bangalore, 1st June 1967, the applicant is entitled to receive salary at the following rates with effect from 1-7-1967 or the date of appointment whichever is later Rs. 100. 8. He ought to have been put in the following categories but they have been treated wrongly as follows: demanded correct category with rate of salary. Supplier with Rs. 100 existing wrong category with rate of salary. Helper with Rs. 100. 9. 100. 8. He ought to have been put in the following categories but they have been treated wrongly as follows: demanded correct category with rate of salary. Supplier with Rs. 100 existing wrong category with rate of salary. Helper with Rs. 100. 9. In view of the above applicant is entitled to the higher rate of salary of the correct category and the arrears to which they are thus entitled to comes to the following amounts.