JUDGMENT Yashoda Nahdan, J. - These two petitions raise common questions of law and consequently can be disposed of by a common judgment, which we proceed to do. 2. The petitioner in the two writ petitions is Jaswant Sugar Mills, Ltd., Meerut. The material facts giving rise to Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, are that the petitioner which is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act owns three separate units, that is, Jaswant Sugar Mills, Meerut, Straw Board Mills, Meerut, and Putha Farm and Orchards. Admittedly the sugar mills and straw board mills are situate in the same compound and some of the departments of the sugar mills and straw board mills are common, inter alia, the time office, the electricity department and the workshop, etc. Respondents 3 to 5 of Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, it is alleged, are employees of the straw board mills and are on its pay-rolls. According to the petitioner's own case opposite parties 3 and 5 of Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, were at the relevant time working :as time. keepers at the petitioner's straw board mills, while opposite party 4 was working as an electrician in the petitioner's straw board mills. The Central Government appointed a wage board for making recommendations for the wage-structure in sugar factories. The First Wage Boards recommendations were Implemented by the State Government by means of a notification under S. 1(b) of the Uttar Pradesh. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the recommendations of the First Wage Board were made applicable to employees of sugar factories with effect from 1 November 1960. Subsequently the Union Government set up a Second Wage Board for making recommendations for wages structure and other conditions for service of workmen employed in the sugar factories and allied factories. The recommendations of the Second Wage Board were accepted and implemented by means of a notification again issued under S. 3 (b) of the Act, dated 27 November 1910. On the publication of this notification respondents 3 to 5 of Miscellaneous Writ No. 865 of 1972, presented a claim petition under S. 6H (2) of the Act asserting that they had become entitled to a monthly basic salary in accordance with the notification with effect from 1 November 1969. On the publication of this notification respondents 3 to 5 of Miscellaneous Writ No. 865 of 1972, presented a claim petition under S. 6H (2) of the Act asserting that they had become entitled to a monthly basic salary in accordance with the notification with effect from 1 November 1969. The prayer for payment of the difference in wages which had been obtained by them for the period between I November 1969 to 31 March 1971, and that to which they became entitled under the recommendations of the Second Wage Board as enforced by means of the notification referred to earlier with effect from 1 November 1969. The claim made by opposite parties 3 to 5 was resisted by the petitioner. 3. On the basis of the material produced before it the Labour Court (respondent 1) came to the conclusion that since opposite parties 3 to 5 were workmen employed to worked partly in a sugar factory and partly in an allied factory, they were entitled to the benefits claimed by them under the notification, dated 27 November 1970. The claim petitions of opposite parties 3 to 5 were dis- posed of by a common order of the Labour Court, Meerut (respondent 1), dated 1 September 1971. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the Labour Court (respondent 1) by means of Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972. 4. Subsequently the same workmen filed claim petitions under S. 6H (2) of the Act making identical claims on the basis of the same notification for the period commencing 1 April 1971 and ending 31 July 1972. While the proceedings under S. 6H (2) were pending, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8285 of 1973, and obtained an interim order staying the proceedings before respondent 1, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh at Meerut. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us, as it was contended before the Labour Court in proceedings giving rise to Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 165 of 1972, that sines the straw board factory was an independent, separate and distinct unit from the sugar mills, it could not be considered to be an allied industry within the meaning of the notification on the basis of which opposite parties 3 to 5 of Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, and opposite parties 2 to 4 of Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8285 of 1973, claimed. It was urged that though both the factories are situate in a common compound they had different pay- rolls and the workmen of other were governed by separate standing order and the working conditions were not identical and con- sequently workmen of the straw board factory could not be treated as workmen of a factory allied with the sugar mills. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this contention. It has been admitted by the petitioner of Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, that the three workmen who filed claim petition under S 6 H(z) of the Act worked partly for the sugar mills and partly for the straw board factory. In Para. 19 (1) of Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, it has been stated that " It is only for the efficient working of the mills that only few departments of the unit of the sugar mills and the straw board mills are common and they are the time office, the electricity department, workshop, etc. The division of the work- men on the muster-rolls of the units has teen made on the basis of the proportion of work which is done in connexion with these units. For example, in the time office the straw board mills being permanent, the work of the time office in connexion with the straw board mills round the year is much more and thus four work-0 men of the common time office are on the pay-rolls of the straw board mills and three workmen out of she common time office are on the pay-rolls of the sugar mills. " 7. The relevant provision of the notification, dated 27 November 1970, under S. 3 (b) of the Act on which the workmen placed reliance is in the following terms : " Provided that . . . * * * (b) Workmen employed to work partly in any allied factory including sugarcane farms owned by the sugar factory and partly id the sugar factory shall also receive the same wages as obtaining in the allied factory or in the sugar factory whichever is higher..." 8. On the admission contained in Para. . . * * * (b) Workmen employed to work partly in any allied factory including sugarcane farms owned by the sugar factory and partly id the sugar factory shall also receive the same wages as obtaining in the allied factory or in the sugar factory whichever is higher..." 8. On the admission contained in Para. 19(1) of Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 865 of 1972, extracts from which have been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment, it is evident that the respondents-workmen were partly employed to work for the sugar mills and partly employed to work for the straw board mills, whether they were included in the muster-roll of the straw board mills, or on that of the sugar mills, depended on the fact as to whether they worked for the greater part for the sugar mills or for the straw board mills. This makes no difference to the factual position that they were employed partly for the sugar mills and partly for the straw board mills. The only question for consideration is as to whether the straw board mills can be considered to be an allied factory of the sugar mills. It is not disputed that both of them are owned by the petitioner. it is not in dispute that in the process of manufacturing sugar, sugar mills of the petitioner leaves behind begasse as a by- product which is utilised as raw material in the straw board mills of the petitioner. That a factory which uses as raw material by- product of a sugar factory is an allied factory for the purposes of the notification under consideration is made evident by Sub-cl- (a) of Cl. (v) of Para. 1 of the notification itself, the relevant portion of which is in the following terms : "All persons employed for work in residential colony attached to the factories shall also be deemed to be included within the definition of ` workman ' for the purposes of this order, but this order shall not apply to following : (a) Khandsari and gur refineries and allied industries such as manufacture of potable spirit, power alcohol and confectionery and sugarcane farms ; " 9. Potable spirit, power alcohol and confectionery producing concerns use as raw material molasses which are the waste pro- duct of sugar factory. If it had not been for the exception made by Sub-cl. (a) of Cl. Potable spirit, power alcohol and confectionery producing concerns use as raw material molasses which are the waste pro- duct of sugar factory. If it had not been for the exception made by Sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (v), industries engaged in manufacture of potable spirit, power alcohol and confectionery would have been industries allied with sugar factories for the purposes of the order and workmen employed in such industries would have been governed by the order. Sub-clause (a) of Cl. (P) clearly indicates to our mind that it was intended that a factory which uses as raw material the waste or by-products of a sugar mill is an allied factory for the purposes of this order. In the instant case, undisputably the begasse left by the sugar mill are used as raw material for manufacturing of straw board in the straw board mills and there is thus no escape from the conclusion that it is an allied factory. It is thus an industry allied to the sugarcane mill of the petitioner and the workmen who made a claim under S. 6 H (2) of the Act are entitled to the benefit of the notification. The view taken by the Labour Court in its order which is the subject-matter of Miscellaneous Writ No. 865 of 1972 is, in our opinion, perfectly sound. 10. The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of Miscellaneous Writ No. 865 of 1972 is that after the recommendations made by the Second Wage Board and before the notification implementing it issued by the State Government under S. 3 (b) of the act, the workmen of the straw board mills had raised an industrial dispute claiming revision of their wages and increase in the dearness allowance admissible to various classes of workmen employed by the mills. An agreement was ultimately entered into between the workmen and the petitioner by means of which the employer concerned agreed to make substantial increase in the dearness allowances of the workmen and the workmen in writing agreed not to press the demand for the application of the recommendations of the Second Wage Board to them. It was contended that in view of this agreement which had been registered, It was not open to the workman to make a claim on the basis of the notification issued by the State Government. It was contended that in view of this agreement which had been registered, It was not open to the workman to make a claim on the basis of the notification issued by the State Government. There is, in our opinion, no merit in this argument. At the time when the agreement was entered into between the employer and the workmen the recommendations of the wage board had not been accepted and implemented by the State Government. After the notification under S. 3 (b) of the Act was issued by the State Government the petitioner became l gaily bound to act in accordance with the notification, and the agreement which was in conflict with the statutory order became ineffective and void in the eye of law. 11. For the reasons given above we dis- miss both these petitions. Interim order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Writ No. 8285 of 1973, is hereby vacated. Opposite parties 3 to 5 of Miscellaneous Writ No. 865 of 1972, and opposite parties 2 to 4 of Miscellaneous Writ No. 8285 of 1973, shall be entitled to their costs from the petitioner.