JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - On February 18, 1969, the State Government issued a notification under Sec. ion 3 of the Minimum Wages Act fixing the wages of various kinds of employees of the Biri Industry. Clause (b) of the said notification provided : "(b) No deduction shall be made by the employer on account of supply of raw material all of which have to be supplied by him free of cost to the bidi maker." The appellant, who is a bidi manufacturer, filed a writ petition to challenge the validity of this clause. A learned Single Judge has upheld the validity of the first part of clause (b), that is, no deduction shall be made by the employer on account of supply of raw materials, but held that the second part of clause (b) all of which have to be supplied by him free of costs to the bidi maker' was ultra vires Section 3 because it has no relevance to the fixation of minimum wages. On this view the writ petition was partly allowed. The second part of clause (b), that is, all of which have to be supplied by him free of costs to the bidi maker' was quashed. The rest of clause (b) was held valid and operative. 2. In regard to the first part of clause (b), the learned Single Judge held that it was protected by Section 12 (1) Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 provides : "Where in respect of any scheduled employment, a notification under Section 5 is in force, the employer shall pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employment under him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by such notification for that class of employee that employment without any deductions except as may be authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed." The learned judge went on to observe that Sec ion 12 prohibits any deduction except the deductions authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Since in the present case the appropriate authority had not permitted any deductions in respect of the raw materials such a deduction will not be permissible and Section 12 will not apply. The first part of clause (b) merely reiterates the language of Section 12 and does not do anything more and accordingly it is valid. Since in the present case the appropriate authority had not permitted any deductions in respect of the raw materials such a deduction will not be permissible and Section 12 will not apply. The first part of clause (b) merely reiterates the language of Section 12 and does not do anything more and accordingly it is valid. This view has been challenged by the manufacturer in the present appeal. The State Government has also preferred Special Appeal No. 820 of 1971 holding second part of clause (b) to be invalid. 3. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the second part of clause (b) clearly goes beyond the purview of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 authorises the appropriate Government to fix minimum rates of wages. The Government is not authorised to make a notification that the raw materials will be supplied free of cost. This part of clause (b) was clearly beyond the powers possessed by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act and was rightly quashed. The appeal filed by the State Government has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. Coming to the appeal filed by the employers the position is that Section 3 authorises the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages. Section 5 lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Government before issuing the notification fixing the, minimum rates of wages. Section 12 provides that the employer shall not deduct anything except as may be authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. This leaves a discretion in the Prescribed Authority to lay down or provide for the deductions which may validly be made from the wages so fixed. So in so far as Section 12 (1) goes the position is that the employer cannot make any deductions from the minimum wages unless the deduction is authorised by the prescribed authority. 4. Sub-Section (2) of Section 12, however, provides that nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Sub-Section (2), therefore, makes sub-section (1) 4 of Section 12 subservient to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Section 7 of the Payment of. Wages Act lays down the various deductions from the wages which may be made by the employers. Sub-Section (2), therefore, makes sub-section (1) 4 of Section 12 subservient to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Section 7 of the Payment of. Wages Act lays down the various deductions from the wages which may be made by the employers. Sub-Section (2) (c) provides: "(C) deductions for damages to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody; or for loss of money for which he is required to a account, where such damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default." In our opinion, since Section 12 (1) does not affect the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, the provision of Section 7 of that Act will continue to apply and operate upon the payment of wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act. The resultant position is that an employer would be entitled to make such deductions from the minimum, wages fixed under section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act as are authorised by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12 (1) or as are provided by Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act. 5. The impugned notification was issued under Section 5 of the, Minimum Wages Act. It has to be subject to Section 12 of that Act as explained above and it will operate subject to the provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act. The prohibition incorporated in the impugned notification must, in view of these two provisions, be subject to these qualifies ions. If it is not so read the notification would be ultra vires Section 12 itself. In this view, we are unable to uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge that the first part of clause (b) of the notification is protected by Section 12. In our opinion it will be more appropriate to hold that the first part of clause (b) of the notification operates subject to the provisions of Section 12. 6. This being the true position, the notification will operate accordingly. It is thus not necessary to quash the first part of clause (b) of the notification. Subject to these observations, Special Appeal No. 703 of 1971 filed by these employers is dismissed. Special Appeal No. 820 of 1971 f