JUDGMENT : H.D. PateI, J.—The above petitions arise as a consequence of two contradictory findings on the same matter in the same establishment in respect of the workmen employed at the same place by the two different Presiding Officers of the Labour Court exercising the same jurisdiction. To clarify further a bunch of applications were filed by individual employees under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference in the wages paid and payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The bunch of applications were allotted to the two different Presiding Officers of the Labour Court at Nagpur. The proforma of the applications filed was identical. Only the names of employees, length of service rendered and amount claimed were different. The learned Presiding Officer of the IIIrd Labour Court, who decided the applications earlier was of the opinion that the minimum wages as fixed for the employment in the engineering industry were not applicable to the workmen of the petitioner establishment and by an order dated 21.2.1985 dismissed all the applications that were allotted to him. The Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court disagreeing with the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the IIIrd Labour Court arrived at a contrary finding that the minimum wages as fixed for the employment in the engineering industry were applicable to the employees of the petitioner establishment and accordingly allowed the applications by directing the petitioner-employer to pay the sum due to each of the employees who had filed the applications. The petitioner which is partnership firm is hence challenging the contradictory finding given by the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court, Nagpur, in these petitions. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner-firm deals in manufacturing of domestic utensils and household articles of brass in a small-scale industrial sector. The second respondent in each of the petitions is in the employment of the petitioner-firm working in different capacities. Each of them has filed application under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference in wages paid and payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which they were in the employment prior to the date of the applications. Each of them has filed application under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference in wages paid and payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which they were in the employment prior to the date of the applications. The claim of the second respondent was based on the fact that the establishment of the petitioner is a scheduled employment in engineering industry, for which minimum rates of wages have been fixed by the Government of Maharashtra with effect from 1st December, 1974. The workmen hence claimed the basic wages and variable special allowance as fixed by the minimum wages notification. 3. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner firm besides filing a separate written statement in each of the cases. It was contended therein that the petitioner admittedly manufactured utensils and/or household articles out of mixture of copper and zinc. As such the establishment of the petitioner is not an employment in the engineering industry covered by Entry No. 36 of Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In this context the petitioner firm further contended that it was only in the year 1976 that the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act gave a notice of its intention to add to part I of the Schedule to that Act with effect from 15th February, 1977, the employment in any establishment manufacturing utensils of zinc, brass, copper, aluminium, stainless steel and/or any other material, in respect of which it was of the opinion that the minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the said Act. This was published by Notification No. MWA 3876/1189/LAB-7 dated 8th November, 1976 by the Industries, Energy and Labour Department, in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 23rd December, 1976. Accordingly by a further Notification No. MWA 3876/1180/LAB-7 dated 30th March, 1977 the said scheduled employment came to be added as Entry No. 48 -A in Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum rates of wages in respect of the said entry were, however, fixed and brought into force with effect from 26th January, 1981. Accordingly by a further Notification No. MWA 3876/1180/LAB-7 dated 30th March, 1977 the said scheduled employment came to be added as Entry No. 48 -A in Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum rates of wages in respect of the said entry were, however, fixed and brought into force with effect from 26th January, 1981. It was hence the contention of the petitioner firm that their establishment which manufactured household utensils and other articles was declared as a scheduled employment for the first time in the year 1977 and the minimum rates of wages were made payable in respect of the said employment only after 26th January, 1981. In view of this development, it was contended in the preliminary objection that the minimum rates of wages fixed for the employment in engineering industry could not be made applicable to the petitioner firm. 4. The aforesaid preliminary objection was upheld by the Presiding Officer of the IIIrd Labour Court, Nagpur, whereas the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court, Nagpurrejected the objection and directed the petitioner firm to pay the sum to the respondent-employees in each of the petitions. In other words the establishment of the petitioner firm was held by the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court, Nagpur, to be an employment in engineering industry and hence they were liable to pay the minimum rates of wages fixed therefor. Aggrieved by this decision, the present petitions are filed. 5. A common question arises for determination in all these petitions is whether the establishment of the petitioner firm is an employment in engineering industry or not. Therefore all the petitions are being disposed of by the common judgment. This decision solely rests on the admitted fact that the establishment of the petitioner firm deals in the business of manufacturing domestic utensils and/or articles only. 6. Entry No. 36 of Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act reads as under: "36. Therefore all the petitions are being disposed of by the common judgment. This decision solely rests on the admitted fact that the establishment of the petitioner firm deals in the business of manufacturing domestic utensils and/or articles only. 6. Entry No. 36 of Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act reads as under: "36. Employment in engineering industry not being an employment falling under entry 26 in this Part, that is to say, any industry engaged in any manufacturing process in relation to any machinery, tools, instruments, utensils or articles or parts thereof, manufactured from ferrous or non-ferrous metals or any alloys (including manufacturers of ancillary products for automobile industry, manufacture of bicycle including its spare parts) and processes, connected therewith such as shaping, pressing extrusion, turning, fabricating, processing, smelting, refining, drilling, cutting, joining, grinding, forging, welding, buffing, electroplating and moulding. Explanation:- For the purpose of this industry, the expression "manufacturing process' ' shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948". Shri K.H. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that in order that an industry must be an engineering industry, it must be engaged in a manufacturing process in relation to any machinery, tools, instruments, utensils or articles or part thereof and process connected therewith. Therefore, the manufacturing process must be for the purpose of producing machinery, tools, instruments, utensils etc. It was also canvassed that the word' 'utensils'' will have to be given the meaning with reference to the words associated with it and in which case it will include utensils meant for or used in engineering industry to the exclusion of domestic or house-hold utensils. Given its proper meaning, it was submitted that the establishment of the petitioner firm will not fall or come within the ambit of entry No. 36 so as to hold them liable for payment of minimum rates of wages to their employees. As against these submissions, Shri V.Y. Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workmen was emphatic that entry No. 36 does contemplate industries which manufacture utensils may be scientific or domestic or house--hold by giving its plain and natural meaning to the words used. As against these submissions, Shri V.Y. Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent workmen was emphatic that entry No. 36 does contemplate industries which manufacture utensils may be scientific or domestic or house--hold by giving its plain and natural meaning to the words used. He further placed reliance on some observations of the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee in respect of the scheduled employment engaged in manufacturing of utensils and house-hold articles under entry No. 48-A of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. Reliance was placed on paragraph 2.2 of Chapter n where it is mentioned that the employment in manufacturing utensils was first included in employment in engineering industry, but subsequently there were representations made to the State Government to the effect that utensils manufacturing companies should be separately and independently declared as a scheduled employment and the Government accepted this recommendation. It was hence submitted that no doubt is left that the establishment of the petitioner firm was an employment in engineering industry and they must pay the minimum rates of wages fixed thereunder. 7. There is no manner of doubt that Entry No. 48-A under Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 relates to employment in establishment manufacturing utensils and other house-hold articles and the petitioner establishment is one such employment. If the establishment manufacturing utensils and other house-hold articles was already covered by employment in engineering industry, is it possible for the State Government to refix minimum rates of wages? To be more elaborate, could the State Government while exercising powers u/s 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 add to the schedule an employment which is already covered by another scheduled employment? The answer must be in the negative. Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act hence falls for consideration, which reads as under: "27. Power of State Government to add to schedule - The appropriate Government after giving by notification in the Official Gazette not less than three months' notice of its intentions so to do, may by like notification add to either Part of the Schedule any employment in respect of which it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed under this Act, and thereupon the Schedule shall in its application to the State be deemed to be amended accordingly". The power given to the State Government under the said Section is to add to the Schedule any scheduled employment for which in its opinion minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the establishment to be added must be such that no minimum rates of wages have been fixed before. Necessarily therefore the establishments to be added must be such establishments not so far covered under any of the entries in the schedule. Once the minimum rates of wages are fixed for a scheduled employment the State Government cannot invoke Section 27 again for the very same scheduled employment. The State Government may revise the minimum rates of wages in such scheduled employment under the provisions of Section 5 thereof. It is hence not possible to accept that the establishment of the petitioner firm was an employment in engineering industry covered by Entry No. 36 of the Schedule. Consequently the observation made in paragraph 2.2 of Chapter n of the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee about the employment in manufacturing utensils being previously included in employment in engineering industry is not only uncalled for, but is without any basis having no foundation whatsoever. The observation is also not legally sustainable. In any event if there was some substance in the observation appearing in paragraph 2.2 of Chapter II of the Report of the Minimum Wages Committee, it would have been reflected in Notification No. l 3876/1189/LAB-7 dated 8th November, 1976 published in the Government Gazette dated 23rd December, 1976 under which the State Government is empowered to give notice of not less than three months of its intention to add to the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act employment in establishments manufacturing utensils and other house-hold articles. No such indication is to be found in the said notification. I, therefore, cannot persuade myself to accept that the employment in establishment manufacturing utensils and house-hold articles was at one point of time an employment in engineering industry. 8. It will now be appropriate to consider which and what type of manufacturing process in relation to utensils is included in the employment of engineering industry. I, therefore, cannot persuade myself to accept that the employment in establishment manufacturing utensils and house-hold articles was at one point of time an employment in engineering industry. 8. It will now be appropriate to consider which and what type of manufacturing process in relation to utensils is included in the employment of engineering industry. The meaning of the word "utensil" as given in the Oxford , English Dictionary would be a vessel or instrument for domestic use or household goods or any article implement serving useful end or purpose or an implement or a tool useful to or used by an artisan, mechanic etc. Therefore, there can be utensils besides house-hold goods or house-hold articles. It is therefore necessary to determine which meaning will have to be given to the words "utensils" used in Entry No. 36. 9. While construing the words "commercial, establishment" appearing in Section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act with reference to private dispensary of a doctor and though the words used were of very wide import and gramatically it was possible to include even consulting room where doctor examines his patients with the help of solitary nurse or attendant. The Supreme Court in Dr. Devendra M. Surti Vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 SC 63 adopted the principle of noscitur a sociis, meaning thereby that where two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meanings are coupled together, they are to be understood as used in a cognate sense. The words take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general. "Associated words take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of the words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim "ejusdem generis". The very same principle can be adopted for construing the word "utensils" in Entry No. 36 of the Schedule. Though the normal import of the word "utensils" is much wider, only that meaning will have to be given with which the word '' utensils is associated and those words are machinery, tools and implements. These words only convey that utensils can be those which are used in engineering industry like machinery, tools, instruments. Though the normal import of the word "utensils" is much wider, only that meaning will have to be given with which the word '' utensils is associated and those words are machinery, tools and implements. These words only convey that utensils can be those which are used in engineering industry like machinery, tools, instruments. Utensils used for domestic and house-hold purpose are not therefore intended to be included in Entry No. 36, namely, employment in engineering industry. Such an interpretation will also be in conformity with the provisions of Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act as discussed above. Reliance was heavily placed on behalf of the respondent workmen on a decision of this Court in Ramakant Rajmangal Yadav v. Ramnilan Vijay and Ors. 1988 L.I.C. 269, in which it was held that reconditioning steel or galvanising drums would amount to engineering activities in engineering industry. In no way the said decision can assist the respondent workmen. It only strengthens the interpretation given to the word "utensils" as discussed above. With this finding, it is obvious that the orders passed by the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court cannot be sustained. 10. What now remains for being decided is an application for amendment (Civil Application No. 567 of 1989) to the original application under which the respondent workman desired to contend that besides house-hold utensils, the petitioner industry makes non-ferrous castings, industrial quality brass, copper sheets and tin shoulders. This application was opposed by the petitioner firm as being highly belated since filed after the arguments were over and also because the cases were throughout contested on the admitted fact that the petitioner firm deals only in manufacture of house-hold utensils. There is no doubt that the application is filed at a very late stage after the arguments of both the parties had closed. The matter involved is also important requiring decision one way or the other. To allow application would mean remand of the case for fresh trial again. This is not in the interest of either of the parties. It would, however, be proper to reject the application being filed at such a late stage, but at the same time leaving the question open for the workmen to contend that other activities, if carried on by the petitioner firm as alleged, are the activities covered by the scheduled employment in engineering industry'. 11. It would, however, be proper to reject the application being filed at such a late stage, but at the same time leaving the question open for the workmen to contend that other activities, if carried on by the petitioner firm as alleged, are the activities covered by the scheduled employment in engineering industry'. 11. In the result, the petitions succeed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. Civil Application No. 567 of 1989 stands rejected, but the question is left open for the workmen to contend that besides manufacturing house-hold utensils and other articles, the petitioner firm also deals in manufacturing activities in relation to the engineering industry and this decision will not operate as a bar for claiming the difference in subsequent proceedings by the second respondent in these petitions or even other employees, whose cases I am told arc pending before the Labour Court at Nagpur. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.