Judgment :- Whether authority determining a claim under S.20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act has jurisdiction to decide the status of a claimant is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. By Ext. P1 the impugned order the Labour Court in disposing of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the management held that it has such power. The legality of the order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. S.20 of the Minimum Wages Act provides that all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages shall be decided by the authority prescribed. Sub-section (3) contemplates further 'enquiry' for the purpose of such determination. The right to claim minimum wages stems out of the status of the claimant, as an employee. The notification issued under the Act specifies the rates of wages applicable to each category of employee. Whether a particular employee would fall within a specified category is a question that arises incidentally in determining the claim for the minimum wages. It is the existence of the right to claim such rates of wages thus enables the claimant to make an application under the Section. An enquiry auto the existence of the right would therefore precede the computation. The cases where the existence of the right is not disputed presents no difficulty but where the dispute arises as to the right to claim at a specified rate on the ground that the claimant belongs to a category different from that for which the wages are claimed, the authority cannot proceed to determine the amount payable without deciding the question as to which category the claimant belongs. Such questions being incidental to the main enquiry that is contemplated under the provision are to be decided by that authority itself and the same would not amount to an industrial dispute for adjudication. 3. In considering the scope of the analogous provisions contained is S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court has pointed out in The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalon etc. (AIR. 1964 SC. 3. In considering the scope of the analogous provisions contained is S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court has pointed out in The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalon etc. (AIR. 1964 SC. 743) and : (1963 FI LLJ 89) that "The claim under S.33C(2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the labour court by Sub-s.(2)." 4. The scope of the enquiry to be contemplated under S.20 was considered in Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce and others v. State of Kerala (1970 LAB. I. C. 46!). The question whether the claimant was an employee as defined in the Act arose for consideration in that case. The Court held that: "The question ultimately is one of fact to be decided after taking evidence as to whether a particular category of persons would come within the definition of the term 'employee' in the Act. The fixation of minimum Wages would be valid only if they fill the character of the employees and that can be decided only on the basis of the functions performed by them, which essentially is a question of fact to be decided as and when the question is raised." 5. In Prafulla Chandra Chakravarty and others v. Manager, Dewan Tea Estate and another (AIR. 1960 Assam 97) the Court held that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is competent to enquire and find out as to whether a particular individual is an'artisan' or not, so as to be entitled to draw the minimum wages fixed and approved the view expressed in an earlier decision thus: "It is for this authority appointed by the Government to decide whether the petitioner is or is not entitled to any payment under the Notification which has fixed the minimum wages This power necessarily implies power to determine whether a particular employee falls within the category of 'artisans' as defined under the notification." 6. This view was reiterated in Cachar Cha Sramik Union and another v. Manager, Majhegram Tea Estate (AIR. 1960 Assam 123). This view was reiterated in Cachar Cha Sramik Union and another v. Manager, Majhegram Tea Estate (AIR. 1960 Assam 123). The court held that "An authority appointed to hear and decide the claim under S.20 of the Minimum Wages Act has jurisdiction to determine the class to which the employees belongs." The same view has been taken by the Karnataka High Court in Chitradurga Copper Company Ltd. Regional Labour Commissioner (1984 LAB. I. C NOC 10) holding that "The authority acting under S.20 can investigate and test whether a particular employee or the employment falls into the category of skilled or unskilled or semiskilled for purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Act. That cannot be called as assumption of jurisdiction because it is in furtherance of the provisions of the Act and he has to determine the minimum wages in respect of various types of work which are notified under S.5 for the purpose of fixing minimum wages 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision arising under S.33(c)(2) of the I. D. Act for the proposition that the proceedings under S.33(c)(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings and the authority cannot arrogate to itself the functions of the Industrial Tribunal and adjudicate on a dispute. The decisions in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. The workmen and another (1974) 4 S. C. C. 696), Sahu Minerals Ltd. v. Presiding Officer (1975 II LLJ 341) and Fibre Foam(P) Ltd. v. Kannan Nair (1979 KLT 30) can have no application to a case where for the purpose of computing the wages payable the category to which the claimant belongs has to be decided, question incidental to the determination of the claim. 8. In the present case the first respondent filed claim petitions for the period from September 1980 to March 1985 on the assertion that she was appointed as an X-ray Technician in the nursing home run by the petitioners herein and inspire of the Government notification revising the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees in such establishment, payment of wages at such rate has not been made. The cleric was contested by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the respondent could be treated only as an X-ray Assistant as she did not possess the requisite qualification. The cleric was contested by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the respondent could be treated only as an X-ray Assistant as she did not possess the requisite qualification. In view of that contention the question whether the respondent held the post of X-ray Technician and thereby had the eligibility to the wages on the scale applicable to X-ray Technicians arose for consideration. That question relates to the existence of the right incidental to the determination of the claim and is well within the jurisdiction of the authority. The findings to that effect by the second respondent in the circumstances is valid and legal and is not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record or illegality. 9. There is therefore no merit in the challenge made against Ext. P1. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.