( 1 ) THE petititioner in the above writ petition is an employee of a cinema establishment which is being run under the name and style of M/s. Kapali theatre in Bangalore City. He has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-sec. (2a) of S. 3 of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following circumstances. By a Notificaion dt. 23-10- 1973 published in the Mysore Gazette dt. October 29, 1973, the State government fixed the minimum wages payable to the seyeral categories of employees working in Cinema Industry in Bangalore City and other places in the State of Karnataka, The petitioner is working as an operator the Notification in question has also fixed minimum wages payable to persons working as operators in Cinema Theatres. When the petitioner approached the management to pay him wages at the rate fixed by the notification, he was informed that the said Notification was inapplicable to him in view of the pendency of an industrial dispute between the workman and the management regarding fixation of wages when it was issued and the said proceeding had not yet come to an end. The management depended upon the sub-sec. The management depended upon the sub-sec. (2a) of S. 3 of the Act which reads as follows: where in respect of an industrial dispute relating to the rates of wages payable to any of the employees employed in a scheduled employment any proceeding is pending before a Tribunal or National tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ox before any like authority under any other law for the time being in force or an award by any Tribunal National Tribunal qr such authority is in operation and a Notification fixing or revising the minimum rates of wages in respect of the scheduled employment is issued during the pendency of such proceeding or the operation of the award, then, not with sanding anything contained in this Act, the minimum rates of wages so fixed or so revised shall not apply to those employees during the period in which the proceeding is pending and the award made there in is in operation or, as the case may be, where the Notification is issued during the period of operation of an award, during that period; and where such proceeding or award relates to the rates of wages payable to all the employees in the scheduled employment, no minimum rates of wages shall be fixed qr revised in respect of that employment during the said period. ( 2 ) SINCE the petitioner is being paid wages at a rate lower than the rate fixed by the Notification in question, he has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of sub-sec. (2a) of S. 3 of the Act, on the ground that the classification of industrial establishments made by that sub-section violates Art. 14 of the Constituion of India. ( 3 ) IN order to survive an attack based on Art. 14 of the Constitution, the classification made by the Legislature should satisfy twq tests, viz,, (1) that it must be fqunded on an intelligible differentia which distingushes persons or things that are grouped together from others left qut of the group; and (2) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by it. ( 4 ) THE legislative policy underlying the Act has been explained by the supreme Court in Edward Mills Co. , Ltd. v. State of Ajmer AIR. 1855 SC, 25. ( 4 ) THE legislative policy underlying the Act has been explained by the supreme Court in Edward Mills Co. , Ltd. v. State of Ajmer AIR. 1855 SC, 25. in the following terms :the Legislative policy is apparent on the face of the Minimum wages Act, 1948. What it aims at, is the statutory fixation of minimum wages with a view to obviae the chance of exploitation of labour. The Legislature undoubtedly intended to apply this Act not to all industries but to those industries only where, by reason of unorganised labour or want of proper arrangements for effective regulation of wages or for other causes the wages of labourers in a particular industry were very low. It is with an eye to these facts that the list of trades has been drawn up in the schedule attached to the act but the list is not an exhaustive one and it is the policy of the legislature not to lay down at once and for all time, to which industries the Act should be applied. ( 5 ) BEARING in mind the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above the question viz. whether sub-sec. (2a) of S. 3 of the Act violates art. 14 of the Constitution, has to be examined. Sub-sec. (2a) of S. 3 of the Act classifies the industrial establishment into two categories (1) industrial establishments in which there exists an industrial dispute relating to the rates of wages payable to the employees between the management and the employees and the said dispute is pending before a Tribunal or National Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, or Industrial Establishments in respect of which awards have been passed by a Tribunal or National Tribunal regarding rates of wages payable to the employees and these Awards are in operation, or industrial establishments in which there exists a settlement between the management and the employee with regard to the wages payable to the workmen; and (2) Industrial Establishments which do not fall in clausa (1 ). The differentia on the basis of which the classification is made, cannot be said to be an unintelligible one. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned provision-parses the first test. ( 6 ) THE next question for examination is whether there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved by the Legislation. The differentia on the basis of which the classification is made, cannot be said to be an unintelligible one. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned provision-parses the first test. ( 6 ) THE next question for examination is whether there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved by the Legislation. As observed by the Supreme Court, the object of enacting the Act was to ameliorate the conditions of unorganised labour and to prevent exploitation of labour by the management. The Legislature assumed, when it passed the Act, that the bargaining power of unorganised labour was weak, and therefore, there was necessity for fixation of minimum wages following the procedure prescribed under the, Act. In the case of the those establishments in which Industrial Disputes have been raised by the workmen in respect of rates of wages and they are referred to a Tribunal or national Tribunal, it was assumed that the employees had sufficient bargaining power and could agitate their grievances regarding the fixation of wages before a Tribunal or National Tribunal. On the basis of the above assumptions the Parliament felt that in the case of those Industrial Establishments which came under category No. 1 referred to above, a Notification issued under the Act should be made inapplicable. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable nexus between the classification made under the impugned provisions and legislative policy underlying the, Act. It is, therefore,, clear that the impugned provision passes the second test also. The petitioner on whom is the burden has not established that the impugned provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed without notice to the respondents. --- *** --- .