Judgment K.B.N.SINGH and PREM SHANKAR SAHAY JJ. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing a Notification dated the, 20th Sep., 1976 (Annexure 3), issued by the Government of India, the letter dated the 30th March, 1977 (Annexure 4), issued by Respondent No. 2, as also a notice dated the 31st March, 1977 (Annexure 7), issued to all the quarry owners of Pakur by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Pakur (Respondent No. 2). 2. It may be stated that the petitioner also filed a petition under S. 151 of the Civil P. C. with a prayer for substituting the original writ application by another writ application, which has been filed as Appendix X to the said petition, and, in which it has been stated that it could be appropriate to pray for issue of a writ of mandamus enjoining the respondents to desist from enforcing the minimum rate of wages as prescribed under the notification (Annexure 3), and al6o not to coerce the quarry owners of Pakur to implement the directions contained in Annexures 4 and 7 of the writ application. By this amendment, the petitioner has sought to add the State of Bihar and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), as Resepondents Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. 3. The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Quarry Owners Association of Pakur in the District of Santal praganas, of which all the quarry owners of Pakur area are members, and the writ application has been filed by the Secretary (Petitioner) on behalf of the said Association. 4. In the writ application it is stated that the quarry owners of Pakur deal in stone-breaking and stone-crushing business in various mines located adjacent to Pakur area. By virtue of the powers conferred under Art. 258 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, issued a notification dated the 11th Dec., 1951 (Annexure 1), entrusted the State Governments of different states mentioned therein, including the State of Bihar, to exercise the functions of Central Govt. of fixing minimum rate of Wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of the employees employed in stone-breaking and stone-crushing in the mines situated within their respective States. of fixing minimum rate of Wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of the employees employed in stone-breaking and stone-crushing in the mines situated within their respective States. By a subsequent notification dated the 17th April, 1956 (Annexure 1/A), issued under Art. 258 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India entrusted the States, including the State of Bihar, with the power of reviewing and revising the minimum rates of wages fixed under the said Act. In pursuance of the powers conferred by the latter notification (Annexure 1/A), the State of Bihar issued a notification dated the 13th Sep., 1976 (Annexure 2) revising the minimum rate of wages previously fixed under cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec, 5 of the Act for the persons employed in stone-breaking and stone-crushing operations in the various mines of the State of Bihar. By this notification, two kinds of wages were provided one for the District of Santal praganas and the other for the rest of the State of Bihar. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid delegation by the Central Government to the State Governments, the Government of India, the Ministry of Labour, has issued a notification dated the 20th Sept., 1976 (Annexure 3) fixing rates of wages under the Act different and higher than those fixed by the State of Bihar under Annexure 2. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Pakur (Respondent No. 2), by a letter dated the 30th March, 1977 (Annexure 4), is asking the quarry owners of Pakur, who were so long paying wages at the rates prescribed by the State of Bihar under its delegated power, as per Annexure 2, to implement the rates of wages prescribed by the Government of India as per Annexure 3 from the date of the publication of the said notification in the official gazette, that is to say, from the 9th Oct., 1976. 5. The quarry owners of Pakur, to ventilate their grievances against the new rates of wages fixed by the Government of India vide Annexure 3. 5. The quarry owners of Pakur, to ventilate their grievances against the new rates of wages fixed by the Government of India vide Annexure 3. which were higher than those fixed by the State Government, vide Annexure 2, met the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Bihar, who is the Chairman of the Wage Committee, in a delegation on the 9th April, 1977, and also addressed a letter to him on the same date (Annexure 5). The Joint Labour Commissioner, by his letter of the even date (Annexure 6), replied that the matter had been referred to the Central Ministry of Labour for clarification. Thereafter, several quarry owners of Pakur were served with a notice dated the 3lst March, 1977 issued by Respondent No. 2, pointing out that they were paying less wages than the minimum rate of wages prescribed by the Government of India under notification dated the 20th September, 1976 (Annexure 3), and asking them to remove the said defect within 15 days, failing which action for their prosecution would be taken. (A copy of one of such notiees has been filed as Annexure 7). 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Government of India are higher and harsh and more rigorous to the quarry owners than those fixed by the State of Bihar, which has fixed different rates of wages for the District of Santal praganas in consideration of the backwardness of the District. It is submitted that the result of the new minimum rate of wages will be that many small operators, who are registered as the small scale industries under the Government of Bihar, will have to close their quarries. The legal objection raised is that unless the delegation made in favour of the State of Bihar, under Art. 258 of the Constitution of India, was withdrawn, the Central Government had no power to fix any minimum rate of wages under the Act. 7. No prayer for issue of formal notices for adding the State of Bihar as Respondent No. 3, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central. Dhanbad. as Respondent No. 4, was made. However, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and also on behalf of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on the 4th Nov., 1977, alleging in para. 7. No prayer for issue of formal notices for adding the State of Bihar as Respondent No. 3, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central. Dhanbad. as Respondent No. 4, was made. However, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and also on behalf of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on the 4th Nov., 1977, alleging in para. 4 that the statements made in paragraph No. 2 of the amended writ application are not correct and that the quarry owners are working under respective mining leases and the mines being worked are stone mines (quarries) and they are engaged in mining operations and not only in the business of breaking and crushing of stones, as alleged in the writ application. It is also stated that the stone breaking and stone crushing is a part of mining operation and the provisions of the Mines Act are applicable to their mines (quarries). The crushing part of stones is done only on the surface within the mining area, but the stone breaking and chily breaking works are always done within the mines by the quarry owners. These respondents also denied the assertions made in the writ application that the quarry owners are engaged in stone breaking and stone crushing simpliciter on the surface and justified the issuance of the impugned notification (Annexure 3) by the Central Government, and asserted that the said power has been exercised by the Central Government under the proviso to a notification dated the 25th Nov., 1968, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure A. 8. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply to the said counter-affidavit, denying in main the assertions made in paras. 4 and 5 of the same. 9. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the notification dated the 20th Sept., 1976 (Annexure 3), issued by the Central Government, fixing minimum rates of wages payable to the categories of employees specified in the schedule, is invalid, inasmuch as, so long as the delegation of the power of the Central Government under the Act, as per notifications at Annexures 1 and 1/A, in favour of the State Government was not withdrawn, the Central Government could not issue any notification fixing minimum rates of wages, as per Annexure 3. There is no substance in this contention of the learned Counsel, inasmuch as, from the notification dated the 25th Nov., 1968 (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit), it is apparent that all previous notifications in this regard, including the notifications at Annexures 1 and l/A, were superseded, and power was entrusted to the State Governments in terms of the said notification, relevant portions of which may usefully be quoted : "S.O. 42%: In exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (1) of Art. 258 of the Constitution, and in supersession of all the Notifications of the Government of India relating to entrustment of the functions to the State Government regarding fixation of minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1943 (XI of 1948). And the review and revision of the minimum rates so fixed, in respect of employees engaged in stone-breaking or Stone-crushing operations carried on in any mines or quarry, the president hereby entrusts to the Governments of the States of Bihar, with their consent, the functions of the Central Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), in so far as such functions relate to the fixation of minimum rates of wages under the said Act and the review and revision of the minimum rates of wages so fixed in respect of employees engaged in stone-breaking or stone-crushing operations carried on in any quarry situated within their respective States. "2. Provided that notwithstanding this entrustment, the Central Government may itself exercise the said functions either generally or in any particular case or class of cases." It is thus apparent that the power of fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of the employees engaged in stone-breaking or stone-crushing operations carried on in mines or quarries in the State of Bihar was delegated to the Government of the State of Bihar, under Cl- 2 of the said notification, not withstanding this delegation, the Central Government also reserved its. right to exercise the function of fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees engaged in stone-breaking or stone-crushing operations carried on in any quarry. It is not disputed, nor it can be disputed, that while delegating the power of fixation of minimum rate oi wages under the Act, the Central Government could reserve its right to fix minimum rate of wages in spite of the delegation. 10. Mr. It is not disputed, nor it can be disputed, that while delegating the power of fixation of minimum rate oi wages under the Act, the Central Government could reserve its right to fix minimum rate of wages in spite of the delegation. 10. Mr. Singh has next contended that Annexure 3 will have no application to the quarry owners of Pakur, as they are engaged and deal in stone-breaking, and stone-crushing simpliciter on surface and not in any mining operation. This argument is based on the assertions made in Appendix X to the petition for amendment filed on behalf of the petitioner, which, as a matter of fact, seeks to substitute the writ application originally filed. The statements made in paragraph No. 2 of Appendix X are denied in paragraph No. 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in the following terms: "4. That the statement made in paragraph 2 of the amended writ petition is not correct. The fact is that the quarry-owners are working under respective mining leases. The mines being worked are Stone mines (quarry). The quarry-owners are engaged in the mining operation and not that they are engaged in stone-breaking and stone-crushing only simpliciter. Stone breaking and stone-crushing is a part of mining operation, and the provisions of the Mines Act is applicable to their mines (quarry). The crushing part is only on surface within mining area, but other stone breaking and chily breaking work are always being done in the quarry (mines) by the quarry owners." This assertion is denied by the petitioner in paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit in reply, and all that is stated in this regard- is, "Merely because the Mines Act applies to stone-quarries, it cannot be contended that the employment of stone breaking and stone-crushing is done on behalf of the quarry owners of Pakur inside the mines." In view of the statements made by the petitioner in paragraph No. 2 of the writ application originally filed, which is quoted below for easy reference, this assertion cannot be accepted: "2. That the quarry owners of Pakur deal in stone-breaking and stone-crushing business in various mines located adjacent to Pakur area." The petitioner has failed to produce before us any material to show that the earlier statement made. in the original writ application was incorrect. That the quarry owners of Pakur deal in stone-breaking and stone-crushing business in various mines located adjacent to Pakur area." The petitioner has failed to produce before us any material to show that the earlier statement made. in the original writ application was incorrect. It seems, faced with their own statement made in the original writ application, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment, praying for substituting a new writ application as Appendix X to the amendment petition, which purports to change the case as originally made in para. 2 of the writ application and it cannot be allowed. I, accordingly, reject the petition for amendment in so far as it seeks to substitute the original writ application with a new writ application as in Appendix X to the said petition, although, I have referred to it for meeting the arguments of the learned Counel. 11. Mr. Singh has next contended that under S. 3 of the Act, "the appropriate Government" has the power to fix minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in employments specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule to the said Act. Item No. .8 of Part I of the Schedule to the Act refers to "Employment in stone breaking or stone-crushing", and it does not say that it relates to those operations in mines, whereas the notification at Annexure 3, issued by the Central Government, is in relatiori to "stone mines." which will not apply to stone breaking and stone-crushing on the surface, bereft of any mining operation carried on in this regard. This argument overlooks the basic fact, as already found by me, that these quarry owners are working under mining leases, as asserted in paragraph No. 4 of the counter-affidavit, and are engaged in mining operations, which is also their case in paragraph. No. 2 of the writ application., Even if. This argument overlooks the basic fact, as already found by me, that these quarry owners are working under mining leases, as asserted in paragraph No. 4 of the counter-affidavit, and are engaged in mining operations, which is also their case in paragraph. No. 2 of the writ application., Even if. if is as sumed that they are engaged in stone-breaking or stone-crushing on the surface of the quarries, it must be held that the "quarry"; will include a "mine", as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of the Maharashtra v. Mohanlal Devichand, (AIR 1966 SC 189) which was a case in relation to Item No. 8 of Part I of the Schedule of the Act, relevant passages from which may usefully be quoted: "Therefore, if we examine the definition of appropriate Government in Section 2 (b) in the context and in the background of the Government of India Act and the existing law, it seems to us that the Central Legislature must have intended to include quarries in the word mine, otherwise it would be rather incongruous that some matters such as health and safety, hours and employment . in quarries, should be regulated by the Central Government and minimum wages by the State Governments...... Thus, reading item 8 of the schedule and S. 2 (b) of the Act together, it seems to us that the definition demarcates the jurisdiction of the Central Government and the State Governments in this way; if the employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing is in a quarry then it is within the jurisdiction of the Central Government; if the employment in stone-breaking or stone-crushing is not in a quarry, it is the State Government that will have jurisdiction." As already pointed out, there is no assertion in this writ application that any of the quarry owners of Pakur, on whose behalf this writ application has been filed, is working outside the quarry. The operation carried on by the quarry owners on the surface of the quarries will be doubtless "mining operation". This gains support from the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1976 SC 1393 ). The operation carried on by the quarry owners on the surface of the quarries will be doubtless "mining operation". This gains support from the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1976 SC 1393 ). It is, therefore, manifest that the notification (Annexure "3") issued by the Central Government will apply to stone-breaking or stone-crushing in a quarry and the argument of the learned Counsel on this score has to be rejected. 12 Mr. Singh has lastly contended that the State of Bihar will be the "appropriate Government" in relation to the petitioners quarry owners association and the minimum rates of wages fixed under State Governments notification (Annexure "2"), in preference to those fixed under the Central Governments notification (Annexures 3), will apply, as the stone-breaking and stone-crushing is carried on by the members of the association outside the quarries. This argument is based on the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra (AIR 19.66 SC 189) (supra) already quoted and underlined by me. As already mentioned, no such case , has been pleaded or proved before us. Besides, fixation of the minimum rates of wages under Annexure "2" itself by the State of Bihar has been made under the delegated authority of the Central Government which, ipso facto, will not be applicable to stone-breaking or stone-crushing carried on outside the quarry, which may come within the last lines of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra (supra), quoted above. 13. In the result, there is no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed, but, in the crcumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 14. I agree.