JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioners, who are bidi manufacturers, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of notification dated 19th December 1979 by which the rates of minimum wages of certain classes of employees in bidi industry were revised. ( 2. ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notification issued under section 5 (l) (b) of the Minimum Wages act, 1948 did not fix any date for consideration of their representations. There is no merit in this contention. The petitioners did file their objections. They were given a date on which they were heard. There was thus no prejudice whatsoever by not specifying the date in the notification issued under section 5 (l) (b ). We have taken a similar view in Misc. Petition No. 179 of 1980 which has been heard along with this petition and in which the order is being delivered today. ( 3. ) THE second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revised rates are in some cases in excess of the rates proposed in the notification under section 5 (l) (b ). It is submitted by the learned counsel that the rates finally fixed under section 5 (2) cannot exceed the rates proposed. This contention is also similar to the contention raised in Misc. Petition No. 179 of 1980. For the reasons given in the order we are passing in that petition today, this contention is overruled. ( 4. ) THE last contention raised by the learned counsel is that the notification makes a provision for guaranteed wages and that there is no power under section 3 read with section 5 to fix guaranteed wages. The guaranteed wages to which objection is taken are contained in the "annexure" to the impugned notification which reads as under: annexure the employees shall be entitled to get at least Rs. 4. 00 per day (hereinafter referred to as the guaranteed wages) only where the employer fails to supply sufficient quantity of good raw material (including tobacco leaves) to roll 800 bidis per day. The guaranteed wages shall be inclusive of wages for any day earned by the employee in respect of bidies actually rolled by him with the quantity of raw material supplied to him by the employer. The guaranteed wages shall be inclusive of wages for any day earned by the employee in respect of bidies actually rolled by him with the quantity of raw material supplied to him by the employer. Where no raw material is supplied by the employer to the employee and the employee is willing to work and reports for duty or for collecting the raw material, the employee shall be entitled to get the full guaranteed wages. The employee shall not be entitled to get guaranteed wages if he earns less than the amount of guaranteed wages on any day on account of his unwillingness to work for any reason whatsoever. The employee shall not be entitled to get the guaranteed wages if he fails to make full use of the raw material supplied to him even if the raw material so supplied is not sufficient for rolling 800 bidies per day. The employee who works for more than one employer shall not be entitled to get the guaranteed wages for any one of those employers. The employee shall not be entitled to get the guaranteed wages if the failure of the employer to supply raw material is due to fire, catastrophe, epidemics, civil commotion or other similar causes which are beyond his control. ( 5. ) A perusal of the "annexure" to the notification which has been quoted above will show that the object behind it is that the employees should get at least Rs. 4 per day as minimum wage. In our opinion, if an employee works on a day, there can be no objection if the notification fixing the rates of minimum wages says that whatever may be the quantum of work done, the employee will get at least Rs. 4 per day provided the reduced work done by him is not because of any unwillingness to work on his part. The guaranteed amount of Rs. 4 per day where an employee works will clearly fall within the definition of wages" as contained in section 2 (h) of the Act and the fixation of Rs. 4 per day as the minimum wage cannot be said to be beyond the power of the Government as conferred on it under sections 3 and 5. The same thing, however, cannot be said in respect of the guaranteed wage payable for a day when no work at all is taken from the employee. 4 per day as the minimum wage cannot be said to be beyond the power of the Government as conferred on it under sections 3 and 5. The same thing, however, cannot be said in respect of the guaranteed wage payable for a day when no work at all is taken from the employee. The third clause in the Annexure provides that "where no raw material is supplied by the employer to the employee and the employee is willing to work and reports for duty or for collecting the raw material, the employee shall be entitled to get the full guaranteed wages. " This clause will enable the employee to earn rs. 4 per day even though no work is taken from him at all because of non-supply of raw material by the employer. Such a payment partakes of lay off compensation and cannot fall within the definition of "wages" as contained in section 2 (h ). The definition in section 2 (h) is similar to the definition of "wages" as given in section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. There is, however, one marked distinction that the definition contained in the payment of Wages Act specifically includes within wages "any sum which by reason of termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made. " Because of this specific inclusion it has been held by the Supreme Court in Payment of Wages Inspector v. S. Mehta, ( (1969) 1 L L J 762.)that retrenchment compensation payable under sections 25f, 25ff, and 25fff of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will fall within the definition of wages as contained in the Payment of Wages Act. Opinion has also been expressed by the a learned author that lay off compensation payable under section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act will also fall within the definition of wages as contained in the Payment of Wages Act [see Malhotra : The Law of industrial Disputes, Second Edition, Volume I, Page 699]. Opinion has also been expressed by the a learned author that lay off compensation payable under section 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act will also fall within the definition of wages as contained in the Payment of Wages Act [see Malhotra : The Law of industrial Disputes, Second Edition, Volume I, Page 699]. But in the absence of any such inclusive definition in the Minimum Wages Act it is not possible to hold that an amount payable in the nature of lay off compensation is included within "wages" as defined in section 2 (h ). As earlier pointed out by us, the guaranteed wage of Rs. 4 per day payable for the day on which the employee does not work at all because no raw material is supplied to him by the employer is in the nature of lay off compensation and cannot be said to be payable to him as wages if the terms of the contract of employment were fulfilled. In B. B. L. and T. Merchants Assocn. v. Bombay State, (A I R 1962 S C 486.) the supreme Court held that the fulfilment of the other terms of the contract is a condition precedent for the payment of wages as defined under section 2 (h)and it continues to be such a condition precedent even for the payment of the minimum rates of wages fixed and prescribed by the appropriate Government. It was also pointed out that the Act operates on the wages and does not operate on the other terms of the contract between the employer and the employee. It was further pointed out that in fixing the minimum rates of wages the Government cannot claim wide powers possessed by the Industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The notification challenged in that case laid down the manner in which the employer should make payment of "chhat" or discarded bidis and was held to be ultra vires of the powers under sections 3 and 5. The same reasoning applies here. In so far as the "annexure" makes provision for payment of lay off compensation, the notification goes beyond the power conferred by sections 3 and 5. In this view of the matter, the third clause in the "annexure" has to be held in excess of the powers conferred on the Government and must be declared to be void. ( 6. ) THE petition is partly allowed. In this view of the matter, the third clause in the "annexure" has to be held in excess of the powers conferred on the Government and must be declared to be void. ( 6. ) THE petition is partly allowed. The third clause in the "annexure" to the notification dated 19th December 1979 is declared to be invalid and void. There will be no order as to costs of this petition. Security be refunded to the petitioners. Petition partly allowed.