Judgment :- 1. The petitioner carrying on railway catering business, challenges the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in 1987, fixing minimum rates of wages to the employees of railway restaurants. We have in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of today, by a separate judgment, upheld the validity of the notifications and rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the Proprietors of hotels and restaurants and others. We have held that there was no illegality in the composition of the committee constituted under the Act, that there is no violation of Art.14 and that the committee recommended and the Government fixed minimum wages strictly according to law. That judgment should govern the petitioner as well. But a new contention, peculiar to the railway catering establishments, relating to the competence of the State Government to fix minimum wages arises for determination in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a licensee of Vegetarian refreshment rooms in the railway stations at Calicut. Palghat and Chalakudy. He secured these catering rights by entering into an agreement with the President of India and thus conducts his own business in the railway premises as a contractor. The business is conducted by him for his own benefit and profit. 3. The State Government constituted the Committee under S.3 of the Minimum Wages Act and fixed the minimum wages for shops and establishments including hotels and restaurants, and thus for the petitioner's establishment as well. Under the Act, the appropriate Government alone can fix minimum wages and "appropriate Government" is defined in S.2 (b) thus:-(b) "appropriate Government" means (i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oilfield or major port, or any corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government." 4. The contention is that the appropriate Government in the present case is the Central Government, as the railway refreshment stalls are run under the authority of the Railway Administration. 5. These railway refreshment stalls are not run by the Railway Administration. The question is whether they are run "under the authority of" the Railway Administration. The contention is that the appropriate Government in the present case is the Central Government, as the railway refreshment stalls are run under the authority of the Railway Administration. 5. These railway refreshment stalls are not run by the Railway Administration. The question is whether they are run "under the authority of" the Railway Administration. The expression "under the authority" of the Railway Administration, connotes that the business or activity is conducted as a business or activity of the Railway itself or is conducted through the instrumentality of an agency created by the Railways, The petitioner was conducting his own business as licensee of the Railway under a contract and was not carrying on the business of the Railways. The nature of the contract required, considerable control by the Railways, but that would not make the business carried on by the petitioner as that of the Railways The liability to pay wages to the employees in the refreshment stall is that of the employer, the petitioner, and not that of the Railways. It seems to be clear, therefore, that the appropriate Government is only the State Government and not the Central Government. 6. We derive considerable support for this conclusion from the decision of the Supreme Court in Heavy Engin. Mazdoor Union v. Bihar (A. I. R.1970 S. C. 82: 1969 (3) S.C.R.995). The question in that case was whether a Government company, the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., was an undertaking carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. There was no dispute that the Company was not an industry carried on by the Central Government, but the contention was that as the entire share capital was contributed by the Central Government and extensive powers were conferred on the Central Government under the Articles of Association, the Company should be regarded as an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government and therefore it was that Government which was the appropriate Government which could make the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held thus: "The definition of the employer, on the contrary, suggests that an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Government means either the industry carried on directly by a department of the Government, such as the posts and telegraphs or the railways, or one carried on by such department through the instrumentality of. an agent. an agent. We find that the view which we are inclined to take on the interpretation of S.2(a) is also taken by the High Courts of Calcutta, Punjab and Bombay. (See Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. v. P. K. Sarkar, Cantonment Board v. State of Punjab and Abdul Rehaman Abdul Gafur v. Mrs. E. Paul.)" 7. There is an illuminating judgment of Chief Justice Harries in Carlsbad M. W. Mfg. Co. v. P. K. Sarkar (A.I.R. 1952 Calcutta o). In that case, the appellants were conducting the business of selling mineral waters on the stations of the East India Railway and on the trains running on that Railway under a contract with the Central Government. On the question as to whether the appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute concerning that industry was the Central Government or not, the contention was that as the appellants had entered into contracts with the Central Government to provide amenities for railway passengers which the railway would normally be called upon to provide, they were carrying an industry under the authority of the Government. The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench rejected this contention thus: "In my view the learned judge was right in holding that the appellant company was not conducting an industry under or by authority of Government. It was conducting its own business of manufacturing and selling soda water and other aerated drinks. For its own benefit it had entered into a contract with Government which gave it the exclusive right of selling these articles on railway stations and trains of the East Indian Railway. It is true that they were doing work which the railway would normally perform, but they were doing it not by the authority of the railway. They were doing it as . contractors. The business was not the business of the railway which was being conducted by the appellants as the nominated authority of the railway. The business was the business of the appellants which they were conducting for their own personal profit and benefit. It was in no sense the business of Government and it appears to me that the appellants can in no sense be described as being persons authorised to carry on a Government business. The business was the business of the appellants which they were conducting for their own personal profit and benefit. It was in no sense the business of Government and it appears to me that the appellants can in no sense be described as being persons authorised to carry on a Government business. They were licensees of Government under a contract and they were carrying on their own business and not that of Government or of the railway." "It seems to roe quite clear that the employers of the workmen in the soda water factory and indeed in the catering department were the appellants and an industrial dispute would be between the workmen and the appellants. If the business of manufacturing and supplying these mineral water was carried on by authority of Government the workmen would be the workmen of Government. But such obviously is not the case. In my judgment it is quite impossible to hold that the Carlsbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Company Limited is a business carried on by authority "of Government." This decision is on all fours with the present case. 8. Nearer home, in the decision in S.5. Allom Ltd. v. State of Tra-Co (A.I.R. 1953 Tra-Co. 622), it was held thus: "The industry is being carried on by the petitioner not for any public purpose or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the Central Government but for the benefit of the Sri Sankara Allom Ltd., alone. The profits of the concern, after paying the rent to the Court belong to the petitioner and are taken by Sri. Sankara Allom. The provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944. are intended merely to carry out the fiscal and public policy of the State and not to convert the industry, for which the licence is issued, from a concern into a Government business or a business carried under the authority of the Government. Nor can an over-all control given to the Central Government over a class of industries in general on account of the fiscal policy of the State or on considerations of public policy convert individual units of that industry, owned and worked by private persons or companies into Government concerns or industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government." This decision also is directly in point, against the petitioner. We are therefore, of the view that the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees of the scheduled employment of the petitioner is the State Government and not the Central Government. The petitioner's contention has therefore to be rejected and the Original Petition is dismissed, but without costs.